Beagle ... alas

[David Sander]

Reports coming in saying it's not responding, that NASA craft are
hearing nothing.

The party's not over yet - there's another window of opportunity coming
up in a few hours, but the fact it's not responding when expected
doesn't bode well.

*sigh*


David
--
per aspera ad astra

[Scott Lowther]

David Sander wrote:
>
> Reports coming in saying it's not responding, that NASA craft are
> hearing nothing.
>
> The party's not over yet - there's another window of opportunity coming
> up in a few hours, but the fact it's not responding when expected
> doesn't bode well.
>
> *sigh*

Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.

How much of it was made in France?



And how long before its loss is blamed on George Bush?

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

[OM]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:31:25 GMT, Scott Lowther
> wrote:

>Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.
>
>How much of it was made in France?

....The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!

I was *really* hoping Beagle 2 would make it. I really, really was.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Dudhorse]

"David Sander" > wrote in message
...
> Reports coming in saying it's not responding, that NASA craft are
> hearing nothing.
>
> The party's not over yet - there's another window of opportunity coming
> up in a few hours, but the fact it's not responding when expected
> doesn't bode well.
>
> *sigh*
>
>... read somewhere that Martian sandstorms could be dense enough to block
the solar panel arrays.
So Beagle could be off to a slow start. *fingers-crossed!!*

[Scott Hedrick]

"David Sander" > wrote in message
...
> Reports coming in saying it's not responding, that NASA craft are
> hearing nothing.
>
> The party's not over yet - there's another window of opportunity coming
> up in a few hours, but the fact it's not responding when expected
> doesn't bode well.

THe first words will be: "I'm not dead yet! I'm feeling much better."
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:31:25 GMT, Scott Lowther
> > wrote:
>
> >Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.
> >
> >How much of it was made in France?
>
> ...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
> and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!

More likely the lesson learned will be: "Well, that just goes to show that
it's too expensive to do now. We'll try again much later, when we're not in
office and can't be blamed."
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[bob]

correct me if i am wrong (i am using only memory here) but every lander that
has made it made first contact exactly on time, correct?

so if this oversized pocket watch (how quaintly british!) makes contact
later, would it not be the first time a lander that went missing for any
period of time turned out to be OK

ESA should get kudo's for its orbiter at any rate

[Azt28]

Scott Lowther > :

>Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.
>
>How much of it was made in France?

This is a London Open University project. France don't invest in sciences, only
in cheese making.

Yvan Bozzonetti.

[Anthony Frost]

In message >
(Azt28) wrote:

> Scott Lowther > :
>
> >Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.

> This is a London Open University project.

Just "The Open University", it's based in Milton Keynes. A couple of
other Universities are involved in the instruments, the British
government provided 5 million directly and more via indirect funding
through the research grants bodies.

Anthony

--
| Weather prediction will never be accurate until we |
| kill all the butterflies |

[Andrew Gray]

In article >, bob wrote:
> correct me if i am wrong (i am using only memory here) but every lander that
> has made it made first contact exactly on time, correct?
>
> so if this oversized pocket watch (how quaintly british!) makes contact
> later, would it not be the first time a lander that went missing for any
> period of time turned out to be OK

Every prior lander was capable of contacting home itself; Beagle pretty
much has to wait until a relay sat can see it. If the landing site is
off from the predicted ellipse, which is quite possible, Odyssey may
simply not have found it.

(Alternately, it's apparently possible for the lander to take too long
to open, and not be ready for transmission in the first few hours)

We'll see if Jodrell can find a carrier signal tonight.

--
-Andrew Gray

[Andrew Gray]

In article >, OM wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:31:25 GMT, Scott Lowther
> wrote:
>
>>Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.
>>
>>How much of it was made in France?
>
> ...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
> and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!

I believe the ESA and, indeed, the project team are quite aware the
lander was underbudgeted; remember, this was pretty much a rush job.
Pillinger, IIRC, has gone on record asbeing unwilling to quote the
eventual cost of the lander, simply because it would set a dangerous
precedent if he tries to do it again.

FBC may well be flawed, but it can't conjure money up from nowhere.
Beagle wasn't a major program where the budget got cut; it was a flight
of opportunity where the money got gathered from wherever possible.
Worth nothing the difference...

--
-Andrew Gray

[Nicholas Fitzpatrick]

In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>
>...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
>honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
>wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
>and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!

My memory fails me ... but wasn't faster/better/cheaper some
kind of American slogan? Ford? GM? Some crap manufacturer, wasn't
it?

Nick

[th]

"Nicholas Fitzpatrick" > skrev i meddelandet
...
> In article >,
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
> >
> >...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> >honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> >wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
> >and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!
>
> My memory fails me ... but wasn't faster/better/cheaper some
> kind of American slogan? Ford? GM? Some crap manufacturer, wasn't
> it?
>
Some people claim that it is old Chairman Mao that stated "More (or Greater),
Better, Faster, Cheaper" during the Great Leap Forward. Looking in the mirror,
those ideas were ended up big problems for China and has this far been of
varying success for the space community.
However, there is nothing saying that the principle is wrong if implemented
wisely (see rk's post earlier)

--
th

[LooseChanj]

On or about 25 Dec 2003 16:35:35 GMT, Andrew Gray >
made the sensational claim that:
> We'll see if Jodrell can find a carrier signal tonight.

Because I'm always wrong when I say things like this:

Beagle2 went *SPLAT* in the orange sand.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

[Remy Villeneuve]

David Sander > wrote in message >...
> Reports coming in saying it's not responding, that NASA craft are
> hearing nothing.
>
> The party's not over yet - there's another window of opportunity coming
> up in a few hours, but the fact it's not responding when expected
> doesn't bode well.
>
> *sigh*
>
>
> David

Gee guys, don't you ever read mission timelines before rushing to the
headlines? So far there has been only 2 pass by Mars Odyssey's, one of
which was while it was not clear if the solar panel deployment
sequence would be done with, preventing sending a signal, and the
other while the probe was scheduled to "rest" for the night in a power
saver mode. Next opportunity after Odyssey's passes was this evening
at 2245 UTC... We're still Wednesday... So enjoy Christmas cakes
everyone and just have some faith.

Faith is something hard to have nowadays, and I'm not even talking
about religious faith, but even personnal faith in our abilities is
getting fainter with each glitches the spage program encounters.

We'll see how it goes tonight near 3:00 EST.

P.S. And how about the possibility that it's Odyssey which screwed the
signal relay? Has it ever been tested so far?

[joshua]

> ...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
> and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!
>
> I was *really* hoping Beagle 2 would make it. I really, really was.




Everyone was. And it still *might*.

These missions, as I'm sure you know, need to work in clockwork
precision and choreography. Already there has been a hitch.

What can we say? Entropy is nature's way, not order. Firing a little
probe with no propulsion system from another probe, in motion, at a
remote location 11 months away, is a tall order and prone to failure.

Yes, FBC does not work. Spend the proper amount of money on missions
and TEST, TEST, TEST. When you are done testing, then test some more.
Then test a little more, and then test some more for the hell of it.


Waiting for the next contact opportunity,
-joshua

[joshua]

*If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
Missions (roughly two-thirds).

I suppose the above offers some hope for the weeks ahead, when we have
four more spacecraft (two Mars Opportunity orbiters and landers)
arriving.

I'm quite confident that at least one Mars lander will be successful.
And of course we have Stardust in a couple of weeks as well.



Regards,
-joshua

[joshua]

Oops - I goofed. There will be no Mars Opportunity orbiters. The
mission includes landers only.



-joshua





(joshua) wrote in message >...
> *If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
> spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
> orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
> Missions (roughly two-thirds).
>
> I suppose the above offers some hope for the weeks ahead, when we have
> four more spacecraft (two Mars Opportunity orbiters and landers)
> arriving.
>
> I'm quite confident that at least one Mars lander will be successful.
> And of course we have Stardust in a couple of weeks as well.
>
>
>
> Regards,
> -joshua

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
>...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
>honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
>wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work...

Note that Mars Express, which successfully entered Mars orbit, is also a
F/B/C project, by ESA standards. (ESA finds it much harder than NASA to
do such things.)

And F/B/C works just fine when done right. (E.g., see my signature.)
But even for a F/B/C project, there is such a thing as Not Enough Money.
Beagle 2 has always been a distinctly high-risk mission, because of its
running-on-fumes budget... but the alternative was no lander on Mars
Express at all.

>I was *really* hoping Beagle 2 would make it. I really, really was.

Don't write it off just yet.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Remy Villeneuve]

>
> We'll see how it goes tonight near 3:00 EST.
>

Oups, time conversion mishap on my part... But bad news is that Jodrel
couldn't acquire the carrier signal. Now it's looking grim.

Ah well, Mars scores another one...At least Express is in orbit!

[Canonbie Guy]

Perhaps there's a clue to Beagle 2's fate in the picture taken as it
departed from Mars Express?

You'll recall that the Beagle is captured at the very left edge of the
picture, rather than being centred in the frame.

I wonder if that means it was ejected slightly faster than planned? At the
distance from Mars where separation occurred even a very small increase in
velocity could mean a very different trajectory and a very different landing
site from that planned.

[Henry Spencer]

In article <gcMGb.820687$6C4.737135@pd7tw1no>,
Canonbie Guy > wrote:
>I wonder if that means it was ejected slightly faster than planned? At the
>distance from Mars where separation occurred even a very small increase in
>velocity could mean a very different trajectory and a very different landing
>site from that planned.

Unfortunately, Jodrell Bank would have heard it had it been anywhere on
the correct side of Mars, so even a very large location error is now
pretty much precluded. It's not looking good.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Christopher M. Jones]

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
> >...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> >honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> >wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work...
>
> Note that Mars Express, which successfully entered Mars orbit, is also a
> F/B/C project, by ESA standards. (ESA finds it much harder than NASA to
> do such things.)
>
> And F/B/C works just fine when done right. (E.g., see my signature.)
> But even for a F/B/C project, there is such a thing as Not Enough Money.
> Beagle 2 has always been a distinctly high-risk mission, because of its
> running-on-fumes budget... but the alternative was no lander on Mars
> Express at all.

Exactly! FBC is not magic. You can't point an FBC
wand at an RFP folded around a $20 bill and magically
get a functional interplanetary spacecraft and a
successful space science mission.

But it does work, and has worked, when done right. In
my opinion FBC is a no brainer and too date a nearly
unqualified success. CONTOUR was a big hit, as were
MCO and MPL, but the successes have been tremendous, and
unrelenting.


> >I was *really* hoping Beagle 2 would make it. I really, really was.
>
> Don't write it off just yet.

I won't, but I don't have much hope. I know how cheaply
it was built (by all accounts, too cheaply) and how
little chance it ever had (slim at best). But it's
loss points out an advantage of FBC even when done
wrong. When you lose you don't lose much, and that
can sometimes be very important. When Mars Observer
died it meant the loss of a Mars probe when such were
once a decade, and thus a tremendous loss in money,
time, and effort. When MCO and MPL were lost it meant
much less, which is why Mars got a new satellite a
mere two years after that disaster. In the old way
Mars with without spacecraft companions for over a
decade, now it hosts three functional spacecraft and
will (with even bad luck) harbor more soon. Eggs and
baskets and all that, seems to be as good advice with
Mars as with anything else.

[Mark Herring]

(joshua) wrote in message >...
> *If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
> spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
> orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
> Missions (roughly two-thirds).

And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
Mars.

I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
process?

First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Mark
Herring > writes
(joshua) wrote in message
>...
>> *If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
>> spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
>> orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
>> Missions (roughly two-thirds).
>
>And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
>Mars.
>
>I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
>would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
>the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
>odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
>process?
>
>First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.

Isn't the usual argument that you have a much greater chance of success
with a human at the controls, rather than a timer and a radar altimeter?
In retrospect, the US was probably lucky to achieve 5 out of 7
successful Surveyor landings on the Moon, and a $2000 million budget
(1984 values - don't ask me why) probably helped.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

[Dudhorse]

"Mark Herring" > wrote in message
om...
> (joshua) wrote in message
>...
> > *If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
> > spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
> > orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
> > Missions (roughly two-thirds).
>
> And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
> Mars.
>
> I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
> would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
> the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
> odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
> process?
>
> First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.

.... if anything like Apollo 13 happens on a Mars mission ......... no happy
Hollywood ending.

[Andrew Gray]

In article >, Remy
Villeneuve wrote:
>>
>> We'll see how it goes tonight near 3:00 EST.
>>
>
> Oups, time conversion mishap on my part... But bad news is that Jodrel
> couldn't acquire the carrier signal. Now it's looking grim.
>
> Ah well, Mars scores another one...At least Express is in orbit!

It gives a whole new method for dealing with the Great Martian Ghoul -
take your valuable orbiter, tack on a 65kg sacrifice... ;-)

--
-Andrew Gray

[Vincent D. DeSimone]

>> Yes, FBC does not work. Spend the proper amount of money on missions
>> and TEST, TEST, TEST. When you are done testing, then test some more.
>> Then test a little more, and then test some more for the hell of it.
>
> FBC works just fine. There is no contradiction between FBC and adequate
> testing.
>
> (And it's not like slower/worse/costlier has a conspicuously better track
> record, especially at Mars...)

I agree with your response, but there have been too many examples brought up
in this newsgroup, as well as the news feeds, that FBC is just plain flawed.
My belief that the opinion voiced earlier this year that you can get get two
of these options by only sacrificing the third, is the way to go. It was
called "FBC: Pick 2". I like to rhyme it by saying "FBC: 2 Out Of 3".

In short: tailor "FBC: 2 out of 3" to your needs after reviewing the
mission in question, its objectives, its destination, and the time and funds
willing to be spent on the project. Pick your 2 primary goals and design
your mission. _Complete_ testing of hardware and software should always be
considered an unavoidable overhead cost that is figured into the "C" portion
of the equation. If, after a preliminary review, you cannot meet your 2
selected goals, redefine the mission or abandon it and allocate the funds to
another project. You can always let time and technology advance until the
mission becomes more feasible under your 2 goals. That's why money spent of
basic R & D is not "wasted".

Finally, schedule monthly reviews to ensure that the project is not
"wandering" away from the two goals that you have chosen. If it does, don't
be afraid to acknowledge it and make hard decisions to bring it back in
line, or even kill it. But NEVER sacrifice testing. Giving up testing to
balance a budget is a false savings. A lost mission is nothing less than a
100% waste of total allocated time (F), manpower (B), and funds (C).

[Pat Flannery]

Andrew Gray wrote:

>It gives a whole new method for dealing with the Great Martian Ghoul -
>take your valuable orbiter, tack on a 65kg sacrifice... ;-)
>

And hurl it into the crater of Olympus Mons....yes, there is a distinct
pagan south seas island feel to the concept. And Beagle was a virgin, in
that the design was not screwed around with much.

Pat

[Gordon Davie]

OM wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:31:25 GMT, Scott Lowther
> > wrote:
>
>> Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.
>>
>> How much of it was made in France?
>
> ...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
> and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!

Give it a couple of days and the whinging will start about the waste of
money that could have been better spent on schools./hospitals/statues of
Jonny Wilkinson.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"

[Mike Flugennock]

In article >, (Nicholas
Fitzpatrick) wrote:

> In article >,
> OM <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote:
> >
> >...The only thing I can say about this apparent failure is that I
> >honestly hope this is a hard slap in the face to Europe as a whole to
> >wake them up to the fact that "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work,
> >and they need to quit being ****ing cheap and SPEND WHAT'S REQUIRED!
>
> My memory fails me ... but wasn't faster/better/cheaper some
> kind of American slogan? Ford? GM? Some crap manufacturer, wasn't
> it?

I think it may have been the outfit that built the Space Shuttle, from the
country that couldn't build a spaceplane with a crew escape system and one
of whose Mars mission teams couldn't remember the difference between
English and Metric units.

In that context, I suggest certain folks stop slagging the Europeans,
British and French. It looks really bad, really petty, really classless.

--
"All over, people changing their votes,
along with their overcoats;
if Adolf Hitler flew in today,
they'd send a limousine anyway!" --the clash.
__________________________________________________ _________________
Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org
Mike Flugennock's Mikey'zine, dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org

[OM]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:46:22 -0600, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>And hurl it into the crater of Olympus Mons....yes, there is a distinct
>pagan south seas island feel to the concept. And Beagle was a virgin, in
>that the design was not screwed around with much.

....Of course, you kids realize that to date, only one Beagle has had a
successful mission in space?

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Andrew Gray]

In article >, OM wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:46:22 -0600, Pat Flannery >
> wrote:
>
>>And hurl it into the crater of Olympus Mons....yes, there is a distinct
>>pagan south seas island feel to the concept. And Beagle was a virgin, in
>>that the design was not screwed around with much.
>
> ...Of course, you kids realize that to date, only one Beagle has had a
> successful mission in space?

But said Beagle has contributed to many, many others...

--
-Andrew Gray

[Kelly McDonald]

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 16:47:41 GMT, "Vincent D. DeSimone"
> wrote:

>
>>> Yes, FBC does not work. Spend the proper amount of money on missions
>>> and TEST, TEST, TEST. When you are done testing, then test some more.
>>> Then test a little more, and then test some more for the hell of it.
>>
>> FBC works just fine. There is no contradiction between FBC and adequate
>> testing.
>>
>> (And it's not like slower/worse/costlier has a conspicuously better track
>> record, especially at Mars...)
>
>I agree with your response, but there have been too many examples brought up
>in this newsgroup, as well as the news feeds, that FBC is just plain flawed.
>My belief that the opinion voiced earlier this year that you can get get two
>of these options by only sacrificing the third, is the way to go. It was
>called "FBC: Pick 2". I like to rhyme it by saying "FBC: 2 Out Of 3".
>
Henry's mentioned this before but its more like

Faster
Better
Cheaper
Same old way of doing things

Pick 3.

There are plenty of projects that have been successfully completed
Faster, Better and Cheaper.

Mars Pathfinder, Clementine, DC-X ect.

The problem was when it became the "new" mantra, and suddenly
everything had to be FBC. As if saying Faster, Better, Cheaper makes
it do, it requires new ways of doing things, different management
structures, different ways of testing things, and the acceptance of a
higher rate of failure. However you make up for the failures with more
projects.

Kelly McDonald

[Michael Gallagher]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 08:30:17 -0500, "Scott Hedrick"
> wrote:

>THe first words will be: "I'm not dead yet! I'm feeling much better."

I'd've thought they would be, "Only a flesh wound," but I see your
point. :)

[Michael Gallagher]

On 25 Dec 2003 22:05:34 -0800, (Mark Herring)
wrote:

>And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
>Mars.
>
>I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
>would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
>the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
>odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
>process?
>
>First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.


I agree -- use Mars as the proving ground for spacecrafts habitats.
Remember, a crew that goes to mars just can't hop in its ship and
return like Apollo did, but has to wait for the planets to reallign --
30 to 100 days for a "short duration" mission (although this requires
a massive course correction either going out or comming back, so
that's where you see talk about a flyby of Venus on the return, to get
a gravity assist), 500 days for a "long duration" mission. Also have
the crew stocked with spair parts and a couple of crew members who are
dedicated flight enigneers -- they fix what's broke.

[Michael Gallagher]

On Thu, 25 Dec 2003 03:16:46 -0600, OM
<om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org>
wrote:

> ..... "Faster/Better/Cheaper" does not work ....

Yes, it does; it has. Pathfinder was an excellent example a few years
back, as was NEAR and the lunar oribiter whose name escapes me.

Has it worked all the time? No. But it has worked.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Mike Flugennock" > wrote in message
...
> It looks really bad, really petty, really classless.

In short- it looks *French*.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Curtis Croulet]

> but everybody seems to forget that. ESA has never subscribed to
> the Faster-Better-Cheaper theorem.

From the ESA website:

"The ESA project is also the start of an innovative way of developing building
blocks for cheaper assembly of future European space missions. The spacecraft
has been built and launched in record time and at a much lower cost than
previous, similar missions into outer space."
--
Curtis Croulet
Temecula, California
33° 27' 59" N, 117° 05' 53" W

[Derek Lyons]

Michael Gallagher > wrote:

>Also have
>the crew stocked with spair parts and a couple of crew members who are
>dedicated flight enigneers -- they fix what's broke.

Maintaining a ship in flight is *far* more complex than that.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[Hop David]

Scott Lowther wrote:

> Jeez. Just a few hours, and the probe has already surrendered.
>
> How much of it was made in France?

It was British.

>
>
>
> And how long before its loss is blamed on George Bush?
>

Blame it on Blair.


It's wrong that you are using this sad event to jump on your Freedom
Fries soap box. It smells bad.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

[bob]

amen curtis!

> From the ESA website:
>
> "The ESA project is also the start of an innovative way of developing
building
> blocks for cheaper assembly of future European space missions. The
spacecraft
> has been built and launched in record time and at a much lower cost than
> previous, similar missions into outer space."

[Hop David]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> joshua > wrote:
>
>>Yes, FBC does not work. Spend the proper amount of money on missions
>>and TEST, TEST, TEST. When you are done testing, then test some more.
>>Then test a little more, and then test some more for the hell of it.
>
>
> FBC works just fine. There is no contradiction between FBC and adequate
> testing.
>
> (And it's not like slower/worse/costlier has a conspicuously better track
> record, especially at Mars...)

FBC seems almost inevitable so long as Moore's Law continues to hold.

Every year electronics become more powerful, less expensive, less
massive, less power hungry and take up less volume.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

[Derek Lyons]

Kelly McDonald > wrote:

>However you make up for the failures with more projects.

Well, that's somewhat akin to selling something at a loss, and making
up the difference on volume. Flying ten cheap probes and loosing
three or four of them seems like a good idea, but what of the science
return?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Vincent D. DeSimone > wrote:
>> (And it's not like slower/worse/costlier has a conspicuously better track
>> record, especially at Mars...)
>
>I agree with your response, but there have been too many examples brought up
>in this newsgroup, as well as the news feeds, that FBC is just plain flawed.

Which are those? Mars Pathfinder? Mars Global Surveyor? Clementine?
Lunar Prospector? Mars Odyssey? NEAR? Chipsat? MOST? Mars Express?

>My belief that the opinion voiced earlier this year that you can get get two
>of these options by only sacrificing the third, is the way to go. It was
>called "FBC: Pick 2". I like to rhyme it by saying "FBC: 2 Out Of 3".

That's certainly the party line among the dinosaurs of the space business.
And for *them*, it's true: you cannot get a mammal by putting a dinosaur
on a starvation diet.

The correct statement is "faster, better, cheaper, same old management:
pick any three". Naturally, the same-old-management people like to shorten
that, on the assumption that there will never be a change in management.

To make FBC work, you have to do things *differently*. As rk perceptively
observed, "It's not the slogan, it's the execution." Proper execution is
almost impossible to do if the Same Old Management is in charge. You need
to build a new (sub-)organization, insulated from the failings of the old
one. Just chanting "faster, better, cheaper" every day, while doing the
same old things, is not enough.

(A big factor in the success of Mars Pathfinder and Sojourner was that the
Old Guard at JPL were convinced the mission would fail, so they stayed
away from it. A big factor in the failure of Mars Climate Observer, and
to a lesser extent in that of Mars Polar Lander, was that the Old Guard
enthusiastically climbed on board after the spectacular success of Mars
Pathfinder. NASA does FBC right only by accident.)

>... _Complete_ testing of hardware and software should always be
>considered an unavoidable overhead cost that is figured into the "C" portion
>of the equation...

There is no such thing as "_complete_" testing. It is *always* necessary
to eventually call a halt to testing and fly the thing. Pretending
otherwise is dangerous self-delusion, which prevents discussions of the
tradeoffs and thus largely prevents rational decision-making about them.

There is always a balance between expenditure and risk, which will be
chosen differently for different missions. And never forget that there is
always some risk of surprises, of being blindsided from an area you judged
unimportant, so spending lots of money trying to drive risk to zero is
foolish. Once you have reduced known risks to a certain point, the
unknown risks dominate the problem, and further spending on reduction of
known risks buys almost no real improvement in mission reliability.

It's also important to remember that testing itself is not foolproof.
Galileo's atmosphere probe was tested in a centrifuge to ensure that its
G-switches worked. The test results were fine. But at Jupiter, the 20G
switch came on first, and the 5G switch second -- almost certainly, they
were wired backward *and so was the test harness*. The same thing
happened with ERS-1's magnetorquers. And these were cost-is-no-object
megaprojects.

>Finally, schedule monthly reviews to ensure that the project is not
>"wandering" away from the two goals that you have chosen.

Consider carefully just how much time is spent *preparing* for formal
reviews. A project which schedules them monthly almost certainly will
never get as far as flying anything, because its engineers will never have
time to do much real engineering.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Derek Lyons > wrote:
>>However you make up for the failures with more projects.
>
>Well, that's somewhat akin to selling something at a loss, and making
>up the difference on volume. Flying ten cheap probes and loosing
>three or four of them seems like a good idea, but what of the science
>return?

What's the science return from one failed megaprobe? Megaprobes fail too,
remember. In fact, there is no actual evidence that FBC failure rates are
really significantly higher. That means that flying ten cheap probes is a
*whole* *lot* better than flying one expensive probe.

In the two decades before Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor, the US
flew a total of one Mars mission -- the Mars Observer megaprobe, a
complete failure. In the seven years following, it's flown five, with two
humiliating failures and three spectacular successes (not counting the
MERs, the jury still being out on them). There's no question which
approach has given better science return.

There are examples of this going back to the dawn of the space age. Why
did Explorer fly before Vanguard? Ultimately, because Vanguard was a
megasat (by the standards of the day), loaded up with a whole bunch of
different experiments, and thus was too heavy to fly on a simple
derivative of existing rockets. The Vanguard launcher's first and second
stages were sold as being more or less a Viking and an Aerobee-Hi, but in
fact they had to be distant derivatives thereof, and their development was
long and painful. Why? Because although a launcher built with the
off-the-shelf rockets would have been available at least a year earlier,
it couldn't have orbited the Vanguard megasat. It could have orbited an
Explorer-class mission, but that wasn't good enough.

In the end, Vanguard's results were obscure and unimportant by comparison
to Explorer's, because three generations of faster/better/cheaper
Explorers flew before the Vanguard megasat did. The initial superiority
of Vanguard's instrument set was totally trumped by the way each Explorer
success led to improvements in the instruments for the next one. And yes,
this too has modern analogs: Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter was the result
of a major change of plans after the success of MGS's camera showed the
scientific importance of improved imaging.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Chris Jones]

(Henry Spencer) writes:

> In the two decades before Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor, the US
> flew a total of one Mars mission -- the Mars Observer megaprobe, a
> complete failure.

Hey, they got one picture (at least). But yeah, complete failure is
accurate.

MO wasn't a megaprobe in the same way as some others, though, I think
you'll agree. In particular, they did try not to develop everything
from scratch. Like with Galileo's antenna and Contour's rocket, that
led to problems when the hardware was used outside its design envelope.
Interestingly, the Russians (Soviets), in at least some cases, have
developed hardware with an eye toward multiple missions: the RD-170
engine family was designed from the start to be reusable, restartable
multiple times in flight, and throttlable to ease launcher stress
(including flying humans). All this capability wasn't needed for years
after it first started flying on Zenit launchers, and some of it may
never get used (reusability seems least likely), but it's an impressive
engine and flying on two or three launchers (I don't know if Zenits
still fly, but Sea Launch and Atlas 5 do) today, and it powered
Energia's strapons too.

In the seven years following, it's flown five, with two
> humiliating failures and three spectacular successes (not counting the
> MERs, the jury still being out on them). There's no question which
> approach has given better science return.

Really, the only other US megaprobes to Mars were the Viking missions,
both (with 4 spacecraft total) successes. I'd call the Mariners
something between FBC and a megaprobe, closer to the FBC side. Their
science return was very good to excellent, but only because they came in
pairs (3/4, 6/7, 8/9, with 3 and 8 total failures and the others
complete successes).

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> FBC seems almost inevitable so long as Moore's Law continues to hold.

?? A spacecraft is a lot more than just some chips.


> Every year electronics become more powerful, less expensive, less
> massive, less power hungry and take up less volume.

One corollary of Moore's Law that is well known within the software
industry: as the capabilities of computer hardware increase, the
difficulty of writing the software to exploite these capabilties
increases exponentially. A more powerful computers can be a liability as
it encourages a much more complex system with many more points of
failure.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Also, what do you get from these monthly reviews? Good reviews are
> valuable (actually invaluable) but many reviews consist of people
> coming in and seeing the information cold, sight reading it, and
> then doing real-time analysis.

I can't count the number of times I've seen this in my own career. The
key is to get reviewers who take the task of reviewing seriously. (Hint:
a reviewer knows, deep in his bones, that the task is to to review the
work, not the worker -- if a reviewer ever personally attacks the
author, the reviewer should be educated or reassigned.)

Personally, I'm a big fan of a reviewer submitting his comments to the
review team by email several days in advance of the face-to-face
meeting. Most review comments are trivial. Some are as simple as
pointing out a grammatical or typographical error. Any reviewer who
wastes the time of a review team by pointing out these issues in
committee needs to learn more about how to review.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Scott Hedrick]

"rk" > wrote in message
...
> Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> > In article >,
> > Vincent D. DeSimone > wrote:
> >>> (And it's not like slower/worse/costlier has a conspicuously
> >>> better track record, especially at Mars...)
> >>
> >>I agree with your response, but there have been too many
> >>examples brought up in this newsgroup, as well as the news
> >>feeds, that FBC is just plain flawed.
>
> The media is often way too simplistic. Do you feel that the concept
> is flawed or the execution? Actually, if you read the Spear report,
> you will find that part of the execution problem was that there was
> no good definition of what FBC was, let alone a doctrine to
> implement. I think doctrine is the right word there. Now, I know
> this was dicussed in this newsgroup for quite a looooooong time.
>
>
> > Which are those? Mars Pathfinder? Mars Global Surveyor?
> > Clementine? Lunar Prospector? Mars Odyssey? NEAR? Chipsat?
> > MOST? Mars Express?
> >
> >>My belief that the opinion voiced earlier this year that you
> >>can get get two of these options by only sacrificing the third,
> >>is the way to go. It was called "FBC: Pick 2". I like to
> >>rhyme it by saying "FBC: 2 Out Of 3".
> >
> > That's certainly the party line among the dinosaurs of the
> > space business. And for *them*, it's true: you cannot get a
> > mammal by putting a dinosaur on a starvation diet.
>
> And you can not move from a dinosaur to a mammal, or more precisely
> an intelligent manual without doing the most important thing: think.
> There are no shortage of engineers in industry who do things because
> "that's the way they've always been done" irregardless of how
> technology or missions change.

I used to be a security guard at a sewage plant- and there were far more
interesting things going on than that describes- and on the rare break I wou
ld peruse the environmental engineering magazines. One whose name escapes me
after all these years had a regular column: "Boneheaded Engineering".
Although the column limited itself to examples in the environmental world,
the same people that populated the column exist in NASA, and no doubt Copy
Boy chats with them regularly. The one example of boneheaded engineering
that stands out was a moron who decided to use 4 u-joints, each at 90
degrees, on a drive shaft from a motor to a pump to get around an existing
pipe (there were good reasons, explained in the article, why the motor had
to go where it did and why the existing pipe couldn't be moved). Without any
engineering training whatsoever at the time, even I was able to figure out
an immediately better solution (place the motor on a tower to raise it, use
3 u-joints, which, since the motor was on a tower, the drive shaft is much
longer and the angles would be much shallower). I'm certain there are even
better solutions. How this managed to get past the inspectors is a different
matter. Needless to say, the motor couldn't possibly have enough torque to
work, because if it did, the materials of the drive shaft would come apart.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Mary Shafer]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 23:50:05 -0500, Kevin Willoughby
> wrote:

> Personally, I'm a big fan of a reviewer submitting his comments to the
> review team by email several days in advance of the face-to-face
> meeting. Most review comments are trivial. Some are as simple as
> pointing out a grammatical or typographical error. Any reviewer who
> wastes the time of a review team by pointing out these issues in
> committee needs to learn more about how to review.

And the review chair needs to learn more about how to run a review. I
used to threaten grammarians with physical injury (usually withholding
doughnuts) when I was a chair. Only if meaning is obscured are such
issues worth discussing. Otherwise, mark your copy, because you'll be
giving it to the author after the review.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Charles Buckley]

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>FBC seems almost inevitable so long as Moore's Law continues to hold.
>
>
> ?? A spacecraft is a lot more than just some chips.
>


Prices drop as technology becomes adopted. Generally, the lead
time and general conservative engineering in space projects tends
to make aerospace late adopters.

>
>
>>Every year electronics become more powerful, less expensive, less
>>massive, less power hungry and take up less volume.
>
>
> One corollary of Moore's Law that is well known within the software
> industry: as the capabilities of computer hardware increase, the
> difficulty of writing the software to exploite these capabilties
> increases exponentially. A more powerful computers can be a liability as
> it encourages a much more complex system with many more points of
> failure.

Wierdly enough, you generally don't *need* all the capabilities
of the new chip. The important part is the pricing. The core technical
requirements have all stayed pretty much the same. For example,
the Shuttle has an 18ms response time to send a shutdown command
to the main engines. The computer for this is a multimillion dollar
machine. The work could easily be done by an embedded 386 CPU now,
which I believe is priced in the $10-$20 range. A quick poke around
and I am actually having a hard time finding just the CPU available
anywhere. The standard purchase unit seems to be a PC/104 with
all the trimmings.


Software requires that they exploit the new advances to make up for
the usually kludge nature of the software. When you are aiming at
a specific physical interaction with specific timing, then advances
in added features means little. You are shooting to meet an unmoving
target. Your primary concern is cost and maintaining the same
capabilities. It's not rocket science. If you can order it from
a catalog, it's engineering. (I will concede Error Correction Code
as a very needed improvement, especially for the poor *******s who
bought Sun hardware).

[Charles Buckley]

Vincent D. DeSimone wrote:
>>>Yes, FBC does not work. Spend the proper amount of money on missions
>>>and TEST, TEST, TEST. When you are done testing, then test some more.
>>>Then test a little more, and then test some more for the hell of it.
>>
>>FBC works just fine. There is no contradiction between FBC and adequate
>>testing.
>>
>>(And it's not like slower/worse/costlier has a conspicuously better track
>>record, especially at Mars...)
>
>
> I agree with your response, but there have been too many examples brought up
> in this newsgroup, as well as the news feeds, that FBC is just plain flawed.

There have been examples, yes. And, in many cases, a closer
examination will show a certain consistancy to the problems
that are the sort of things that can, and have, happened in
any project of any size.

> My belief that the opinion voiced earlier this year that you can get get two
> of these options by only sacrificing the third, is the way to go. It was
> called "FBC: Pick 2". I like to rhyme it by saying "FBC: 2 Out Of 3".
>

There isn't anything endemic about FBS that separates
this from any other engineering project.

Correction. I seem to recall reading a Dilbert cartoon where they
are interviewing a prospective employee. Dilbert mentions that they
try to "empower their employees". The prospective employee asked why
they would have a slogan for that. If that had it, they would not
have to preach it. The same applies here. If you have to create a
slogan for lower costs, you have the wrong corporate philosophy to
actually achieve lower costs.

The errors and flaws you are pointing out all occurred in what
is the second generation of vehicles under this philosophy. They
are to be expected. No one expected anything from the first wave
of projects. So, they have some fairly fixed goals and targets.
Pathfinder had a budget of about $200 million for the lander and
rover and that includes also the launch vehicle. The follow-up
mission Mars '98 came in at about $190 million and it included
an orbitor, lander, and about 3 times as many science packages.

Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard.
After that, it is just a process of trimming back and building
appropriately for the job. By spending all their money on the
specfic hardware, they pushed the envelope on having an adequate
budget for training, command and control, and testing. The ground
crew was not as familiar with the mission as they should have been,
they did not follow up on errors, and the testing completely missed
the inclusion of spurious signals from the landing sensors.

When you get down to it, Mars '98 had roughly the same elements
as the Viking mission in terms of complexity of the interaction
of the parts and number of major articles.

snip
> You can always let time and technology advance until the
> mission becomes more feasible under your 2 goals. That's why money spent of
> basic R & D is not "wasted".
>
> Finally, schedule monthly reviews to ensure that the project is not
> "wandering" away from the two goals that you have chosen. If it does, don't
> be afraid to acknowledge it and make hard decisions to bring it back in
> line, or even kill it. But NEVER sacrifice testing. Giving up testing to
> balance a budget is a false savings. A lost mission is nothing less than a
> 100% waste of total allocated time (F), manpower (B), and funds (C).
>

The problem with a lot of the failed missions is that they held to
the standards without the means to actually accomplish those goals.
They were FBC in name only and were budgetted outside the range of
what they were aiming for. Until they get a much better cost/return
decision matrix, they will keep trying to add to much for the budget.
The core of FBC is a fixed low budget.

[Mary Shafer]

On 28 Dec 2003 13:03:54 GMT, rk >
wrote:

> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > And the review chair needs to learn more about how to run a
> > review. I used to threaten grammarians with physical injury
> > (usually withholding doughnuts) when I was a chair. Only if
> > meaning is obscured are such issues worth discussing.
> > Otherwise, mark your copy, because you'll be giving it to the
> > author after the review.
>
> Surprised you didn't get in trouble with the union. Withholding
> donuts is definitely cause for a ULP.

Dryden didn't have one for the engineers (maybe still don't).
Besides, no shop steward would dream of messing with me. I'd stop
bringing in homemade goodies, like sticky rolls, if they did. Being a
good baker confers a certain immunity.

Kidding aside, there's nothing worse than three engineers arguing
about whether the subject and predicate numbers match. The classic
example is "one of these is/are", which is easy in this stripped form
but gets harder as clauses and adjectives are added. I was in a
review that must have spent a quarter of an hour on one of those once.

And then there's the use of "criteria" as the singular, when it should
be "criterion". I almost smacked a fellow reviewer with a dictionary
over that one once. Fortunately, the editor restrained me as she
fixed the offender with a basilisk eye and said, "'Criteria' is
plural, 'criterion' is singular, live with it." The guy subsided in
his chair, mumbling discontentedly to himself until I gave him "the
look". (OK, it went more like me saying that the editor would catch
things like that, and her nodding agreement, but the desire, although
fleeting, was there.)

You know, I was a very popular review chair and I think a lot of it
was that I didn't let people dwell on grammar and typographical errors
and other picayune issues. We'd mostly review by the paragraph, not
the sentence, and this really did keep people's minds on meaning, not
mechanics. Not that mechanics aren't important, but that's why we
have manuscripts to mark up and editors to be the final word. And I
truly did want the review committee to help the author improve the
document, which set the right tone from the beginning. Collegial, not
adversarial.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

On 28 Dec 2003 13:03:54 GMT, rk >
wrote:

> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > And the review chair needs to learn more about how to run a
> > review. I used to threaten grammarians with physical injury
> > (usually withholding doughnuts) when I was a chair. Only if
> > meaning is obscured are such issues worth discussing.
> > Otherwise, mark your copy, because you'll be giving it to the
> > author after the review.
>
> Surprised you didn't get in trouble with the union. Withholding
> donuts is definitely cause for a ULP.

Dryden didn't have one for the engineers (maybe still don't).
Besides, no shop steward would dream of messing with me. I'd stop
bringing in homemade goodies, like sticky rolls, if they did. Being a
good baker confers a certain immunity.

Kidding aside, there's nothing worse than three engineers arguing
about whether the subject and predicate numbers match. The classic
example is "one of these is/are", which is easy in this stripped form
but gets harder as clauses and adjectives are added. I was in a
review that must have spent a quarter of an hour on one of those once.

And then there's the use of "criteria" as the singular, when it should
be "criterion". I almost smacked a fellow reviewer with a dictionary
over that one once. Fortunately, the editor restrained me as she
fixed the offender with a basilisk eye and said, "'Criteria' is
plural, 'criterion' is singular, live with it." The guy subsided in
his chair, mumbling discontentedly to himself until I gave him "the
look". (OK, it went more like me saying that the editor would catch
things like that, and her nodding agreement, but the desire, although
fleeting, was there.)

You know, I was a very popular review chair and I think a lot of it
was that I didn't let people dwell on grammar and typographical errors
and other picayune issues. We'd mostly review by the paragraph, not
the sentence, and this really did keep people's minds on meaning, not
mechanics. Not that mechanics aren't important, but that's why we
have manuscripts to mark up and editors to be the final word. And I
truly did want the review committee to help the author improve the
document, which set the right tone from the beginning. Collegial, not
adversarial.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[OM]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:35:04 -0700, Charles Buckley
> wrote:

>The work could easily be done by an embedded 386 CPU now,
>which I believe is priced in the $10-$20 range. A quick poke around
>and I am actually having a hard time finding just the CPU available
>anywhere. The standard purchase unit seems to be a PC/104 with
>all the trimmings

....I have a 386 sitting in my desk drawer, still in the antistat
casing. If NASA wants it for a Shuttle upgrade, I'll gladly donate it
and skip the tax writeoff.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:35:04 -0700, Charles Buckley
> wrote:

>The work could easily be done by an embedded 386 CPU now,
>which I believe is priced in the $10-$20 range. A quick poke around
>and I am actually having a hard time finding just the CPU available
>anywhere. The standard purchase unit seems to be a PC/104 with
>all the trimmings

....I have a 386 sitting in my desk drawer, still in the antistat
casing. If NASA wants it for a Shuttle upgrade, I'll gladly donate it
and skip the tax writeoff.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On 28 Dec 2003 13:03:54 GMT, rk >
wrote:

>Surprised you didn't get in trouble with the union. Withholding
>donuts is definitely cause for a ULP.

....Yeah, but here in Texas, as long as it's not construction, the
general policy is "**** them mafia union scumbags!"

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On 28 Dec 2003 13:03:54 GMT, rk >
wrote:

>Surprised you didn't get in trouble with the union. Withholding
>donuts is definitely cause for a ULP.

....Yeah, but here in Texas, as long as it's not construction, the
general policy is "**** them mafia union scumbags!"

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Charles Buckley]

OM wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:35:04 -0700, Charles Buckley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The work could easily be done by an embedded 386 CPU now,
>>which I believe is priced in the $10-$20 range. A quick poke around
>>and I am actually having a hard time finding just the CPU available
>>anywhere. The standard purchase unit seems to be a PC/104 with
>>all the trimmings
>
>
> ...I have a 386 sitting in my desk drawer, still in the antistat
> casing. If NASA wants it for a Shuttle upgrade, I'll gladly donate it
> and skip the tax writeoff.
>
> OM
>

Well, the main problem with a 386 and Intel in general
was the number of IRQ's, IIRC. You'd have to design the
system around those limitations, which means a 386 would
work fine in anything else, but it is incompatible with
the basic design concepts of the Shuttle computer. You
could design something new into orbit using a 386, but
back engineering is basically impossible, especially when there
is no possibility of porting code.

[Charles Buckley]

OM wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 06:35:04 -0700, Charles Buckley
> > wrote:
>
>
>>The work could easily be done by an embedded 386 CPU now,
>>which I believe is priced in the $10-$20 range. A quick poke around
>>and I am actually having a hard time finding just the CPU available
>>anywhere. The standard purchase unit seems to be a PC/104 with
>>all the trimmings
>
>
> ...I have a 386 sitting in my desk drawer, still in the antistat
> casing. If NASA wants it for a Shuttle upgrade, I'll gladly donate it
> and skip the tax writeoff.
>
> OM
>

Well, the main problem with a 386 and Intel in general
was the number of IRQ's, IIRC. You'd have to design the
system around those limitations, which means a 386 would
work fine in anything else, but it is incompatible with
the basic design concepts of the Shuttle computer. You
could design something new into orbit using a 386, but
back engineering is basically impossible, especially when there
is no possibility of porting code.

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> While there are still applications that are
> strictly tailored to low power, it is by no means the way all
> electronics are being designed.

An example is the early DEC Alpha chips. These designs were optimized
for speed at all costs, so they are quite power hungry. The IC with the
CPU draws 10 amps continuously, with a peak of 50 amps. (Yes, heat
dissipation was a serious issue.)
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> While there are still applications that are
> strictly tailored to low power, it is by no means the way all
> electronics are being designed.

An example is the early DEC Alpha chips. These designs were optimized
for speed at all costs, so they are quite power hungry. The IC with the
CPU draws 10 amps continuously, with a peak of 50 amps. (Yes, heat
dissipation was a serious issue.)
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Christopher M. Jones]

Chris Jones > wrote in message >...
> (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> > In the two decades before Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor, the US
> > flew a total of one Mars mission -- the Mars Observer megaprobe, a
> > complete failure.
>
> Hey, they got one picture (at least). But yeah, complete failure is
> accurate.
>
> MO wasn't a megaprobe in the same way as some others, though, I think
> you'll agree.
[snip]

The key here is the budget, time frame, organization,
management, and design. None of these were terribly
different from other megaprobe projects, in degree
perhaps, but not in substance. By all accounts it
was a megaprobe. By budget alone, and especially by
soaking up the entirety of the Mars mission budget
for said "really, really effing long time!" it is by
definition a megaprobe.

[Christopher M. Jones]

Chris Jones > wrote in message >...
> (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
> > In the two decades before Mars Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor, the US
> > flew a total of one Mars mission -- the Mars Observer megaprobe, a
> > complete failure.
>
> Hey, they got one picture (at least). But yeah, complete failure is
> accurate.
>
> MO wasn't a megaprobe in the same way as some others, though, I think
> you'll agree.
[snip]

The key here is the budget, time frame, organization,
management, and design. None of these were terribly
different from other megaprobe projects, in degree
perhaps, but not in substance. By all accounts it
was a megaprobe. By budget alone, and especially by
soaking up the entirety of the Mars mission budget
for said "really, really effing long time!" it is by
definition a megaprobe.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Charles Buckley > wrote:
> Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
>generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
>fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
>builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
>have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
>they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard...

The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
principle. Quite a few nightmares of software complexity have been the
designers' second try at a system of that type.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Charles Buckley > wrote:
> Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
>generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
>fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
>builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
>have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
>they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard...

The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
principle. Quite a few nightmares of software complexity have been the
designers' second try at a system of that type.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Scott Hedrick]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> I'd stop
> bringing in homemade goodies, like sticky rolls, if they did. Being a
> good baker confers a certain immunity.

There's a reason why the folks that handle state land auctions go out of
their way for my family- baked goods, especially made-from-scratch. Almost
every time I visit, I bring bread, cookies or brownies.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> I'd stop
> bringing in homemade goodies, like sticky rolls, if they did. Being a
> good baker confers a certain immunity.

There's a reason why the folks that handle state land auctions go out of
their way for my family- baked goods, especially made-from-scratch. Almost
every time I visit, I bring bread, cookies or brownies.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Pat Flannery]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>> Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
>>generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
>>fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
>>builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
>>have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
>>they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard...
>>
>>
>
>The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
>principle. Quite a few nightmares of software complexity have been the
>designers' second try at a system of that type.
>

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that you do on the first
try that don't work as well as you thought they would, and the
experience can lead to improvements in the second attempt- if Lockheed
were to have had the opportunity to build the A-12/SR-71 all over again
(the SR-71 itself incorporating many hard-learned lessons from the
failed CL-400 "Suntan" project), they would have probably gone with
stainless steel rather than titanium for the aircraft's structure- they
found out the hard way that titanium was nowhere near as easy to work
with as they thought.
In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
with he one we have, and it's failings, particularly in the aspects of
design robustness and safety, as well as economy of operation.
If it were redone today, I'd bet it would include either liquid fueled
boosters, or solid fueled ones that were capable of shutdown like the
TitanIII/MOL design; single or multiple escape capsules for the crew
with some sort of heat shielding; and a method of separating the orbiter
from the stack in an emergency. It would probably be larger and heavier
to perform the same mission, but built to be both simpler and tougher;
and designed to require less costly turn-around maintenance.
I grew up in a house that was the first effort by some carpenters at
house building- it had some very peculiar features, including light
switches that did nothing, and others that worked like some sort of
primitive logic device when hooked in pairs (so that turning one on or
off might or might not turn on or off the light in question) and an
internally braced wall that relied upon long rods extending back to
anchor points concealed under the center of the lawn to allow a 12 inch
thick wall- that appeared to be unsupported externally- to contain a
five-foot-deep layer of soil- this worked for a while, but the anchor
rods rusted through after a few decades, and the fact that the dirt
couldn't move outward during the seasonal freezing and thawing meant
that slowly but surely it began to crush the foundation inwards.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>> Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
>>generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
>>fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
>>builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
>>have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
>>they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard...
>>
>>
>
>The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
>principle. Quite a few nightmares of software complexity have been the
>designers' second try at a system of that type.
>

On the other hand, there are a lot of things that you do on the first
try that don't work as well as you thought they would, and the
experience can lead to improvements in the second attempt- if Lockheed
were to have had the opportunity to build the A-12/SR-71 all over again
(the SR-71 itself incorporating many hard-learned lessons from the
failed CL-400 "Suntan" project), they would have probably gone with
stainless steel rather than titanium for the aircraft's structure- they
found out the hard way that titanium was nowhere near as easy to work
with as they thought.
In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
with he one we have, and it's failings, particularly in the aspects of
design robustness and safety, as well as economy of operation.
If it were redone today, I'd bet it would include either liquid fueled
boosters, or solid fueled ones that were capable of shutdown like the
TitanIII/MOL design; single or multiple escape capsules for the crew
with some sort of heat shielding; and a method of separating the orbiter
from the stack in an emergency. It would probably be larger and heavier
to perform the same mission, but built to be both simpler and tougher;
and designed to require less costly turn-around maintenance.
I grew up in a house that was the first effort by some carpenters at
house building- it had some very peculiar features, including light
switches that did nothing, and others that worked like some sort of
primitive logic device when hooked in pairs (so that turning one on or
off might or might not turn on or off the light in question) and an
internally braced wall that relied upon long rods extending back to
anchor points concealed under the center of the lawn to allow a 12 inch
thick wall- that appeared to be unsupported externally- to contain a
five-foot-deep layer of soil- this worked for a while, but the anchor
rods rusted through after a few decades, and the fact that the dirt
couldn't move outward during the seasonal freezing and thawing meant
that slowly but surely it began to crush the foundation inwards.

Pat

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> >> Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
> >>generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
> >>fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
> >>builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
> >>have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
> >>they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
> >principle. Quite a few nightmares of software complexity have been the
> >designers' second try at a system of that type.
> >
>
> On the other hand, there are a lot of things that you do on the first
> try that don't work as well as you thought they would, and the
> experience can lead to improvements in the second attempt- if Lockheed
> were to have had the opportunity to build the A-12/SR-71 all over again
> (the SR-71 itself incorporating many hard-learned lessons from the
> failed CL-400 "Suntan" project), they would have probably gone with
> stainless steel rather than titanium for the aircraft's structure- they
> found out the hard way that titanium was nowhere near as easy to work
> with as they thought.
> In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
> differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
> with he one we have, and it's failings, particularly in the aspects of
> design robustness and safety, as well as economy of operation.
> If it were redone today, I'd bet it would include either liquid fueled
> boosters, or solid fueled ones that were capable of shutdown like the
> TitanIII/MOL design; single or multiple escape capsules for the crew
> with some sort of heat shielding; and a method of separating the orbiter
> from the stack in an emergency. It would probably be larger and heavier
> to perform the same mission, but built to be both simpler and tougher;
> and designed to require less costly turn-around maintenance.
> I grew up in a house that was the first effort by some carpenters at
> house building- it had some very peculiar features, including light
> switches that did nothing,

There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who tells
a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch that
doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to guess
what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me to stop
it.

and others that worked like some sort of
> primitive logic device when hooked in pairs (so that turning one on or
> off might or might not turn on or off the light in question)

Could this be a three-way switch, which allows more than one switch to
control a light? Or did some moron wire them in series?
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> >> Someone went overboard with trying to cram items into the second
> >>generation vehicles. That is not uncommon. It is a generally accepted
> >>fact in the building industry that the second house that someone
> >>builds is their worst house as they try to do too much for what they
> >>have. The first house is always conservative. It's the second when
> >>they think they know what they are doing that they go overboard...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
> >principle. Quite a few nightmares of software complexity have been the
> >designers' second try at a system of that type.
> >
>
> On the other hand, there are a lot of things that you do on the first
> try that don't work as well as you thought they would, and the
> experience can lead to improvements in the second attempt- if Lockheed
> were to have had the opportunity to build the A-12/SR-71 all over again
> (the SR-71 itself incorporating many hard-learned lessons from the
> failed CL-400 "Suntan" project), they would have probably gone with
> stainless steel rather than titanium for the aircraft's structure- they
> found out the hard way that titanium was nowhere near as easy to work
> with as they thought.
> In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
> differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
> with he one we have, and it's failings, particularly in the aspects of
> design robustness and safety, as well as economy of operation.
> If it were redone today, I'd bet it would include either liquid fueled
> boosters, or solid fueled ones that were capable of shutdown like the
> TitanIII/MOL design; single or multiple escape capsules for the crew
> with some sort of heat shielding; and a method of separating the orbiter
> from the stack in an emergency. It would probably be larger and heavier
> to perform the same mission, but built to be both simpler and tougher;
> and designed to require less costly turn-around maintenance.
> I grew up in a house that was the first effort by some carpenters at
> house building- it had some very peculiar features, including light
> switches that did nothing,

There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who tells
a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch that
doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to guess
what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me to stop
it.

and others that worked like some sort of
> primitive logic device when hooked in pairs (so that turning one on or
> off might or might not turn on or off the light in question)

Could this be a three-way switch, which allows more than one switch to
control a light? Or did some moron wire them in series?
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

> There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who
> tells a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch
> that doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to
> guess what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me
> to stop it.

I think that was probably Steven Wright.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

> There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who
> tells a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch
> that doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to
> guess what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me
> to stop it.

I think that was probably Steven Wright.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'd stop
> > bringing in homemade goodies, like sticky rolls, if they did. Being a
> > good baker confers a certain immunity.
>
> There's a reason why the folks that handle state land auctions go out of
> their way for my family- baked goods, especially made-from-scratch. Almost
> every time I visit, I bring bread, cookies or brownies.

Years ago RPI had a "Not Necessarily the Home Coming Queen" contest.

Among the events was a parade where various prizes could be won. One of the
prizes was "best bribe".

So, for the group I was involved in, I made a homemade apple pie and picked
up some milk and cookies.

When we reached the judges, we hopped off the float, pulled out the pie,
sliced it, served it, poured the milk and handed out the cookies.

There was no contest. We got the best bribe prize hands down. (in fact we
got all prizes for the parade that day except for best Greek float (we
didn't qualify) and loudest (Pep band won that.)


> --
> If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission
(ISAC),
> please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
> lawsuit
> in the works.
>
>

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
> "Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I'd stop
> > bringing in homemade goodies, like sticky rolls, if they did. Being a
> > good baker confers a certain immunity.
>
> There's a reason why the folks that handle state land auctions go out of
> their way for my family- baked goods, especially made-from-scratch. Almost
> every time I visit, I bring bread, cookies or brownies.

Years ago RPI had a "Not Necessarily the Home Coming Queen" contest.

Among the events was a parade where various prizes could be won. One of the
prizes was "best bribe".

So, for the group I was involved in, I made a homemade apple pie and picked
up some milk and cookies.

When we reached the judges, we hopped off the float, pulled out the pie,
sliced it, served it, poured the milk and handed out the cookies.

There was no contest. We got the best bribe prize hands down. (in fact we
got all prizes for the parade that day except for best Greek float (we
didn't qualify) and loudest (Pep band won that.)


> --
> If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission
(ISAC),
> please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
> lawsuit
> in the works.
>
>

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who
tells
> a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch that
> doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to guess
> what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me to stop
> it.

Steven Wright.

He also has a map of the world. 1" = 1". Took his last summer vacation
just to fold it.

He also has a collection of seashells. He keeps it on beaches all over the
world. Perhaps you've seen it?

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
>
> There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who
tells
> a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch that
> doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to guess
> what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me to stop
> it.

Steven Wright.

He also has a map of the world. 1" = 1". Took his last summer vacation
just to fold it.

He also has a collection of seashells. He keeps it on beaches all over the
world. Perhaps you've seen it?

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Henry Spencer wrote:
> >The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
> >principle.
> (the SR-71 itself incorporating many hard-learned lessons from the
> failed CL-400 "Suntan" project),

Consider the U-2 as the first system ("system" == Skunk Works spy plane
sophisticated enough to overfly the USSR). CL-400 would then be the
second system, and it shows the hubris common in the second system
effect. The Blackbird would then be the third system, showing a bit of
humility.


> In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
> differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
> with he one we have,

North American's first manned spaceship was the Apollo CSM. Their second
was the Shuttle. The early Shuttle goals of being the one and only
universal, cheap, reusable spacecraft shows the the hubris of the second
system effect.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Henry Spencer wrote:
> >The software business has a name for this: "Second System Effect". Same
> >principle.
> (the SR-71 itself incorporating many hard-learned lessons from the
> failed CL-400 "Suntan" project),

Consider the U-2 as the first system ("system" == Skunk Works spy plane
sophisticated enough to overfly the USSR). CL-400 would then be the
second system, and it shows the hubris common in the second system
effect. The Blackbird would then be the third system, showing a bit of
humility.


> In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
> differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
> with he one we have,

North American's first manned spaceship was the Apollo CSM. Their second
was the Shuttle. The early Shuttle goals of being the one and only
universal, cheap, reusable spacecraft shows the the hubris of the second
system effect.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>Could this be a three-way switch, which allows more than one switch to
>control a light? Or did some moron wire them in series?
>
Well, I can tell you what it did, and maybe you can figure it out from
there; the switches were at the top and bottom of the
upstairs/downstairs staircase- I think the intention was that you could
flip either switch to cause the upstairs' hallway light to go from its
present status (on/off) to the opposite status...but sometimes flipping
one would have no effect whatsoever on the light- and it could be either
one- it was apparent that there was sort of "voting" going on between
the two switches in regards to the status of the light; in at least one
case there was a noticeable delay between flipping the lower switch and
the light going off upstairs...which was kinda spooky in regards to
where exactly the electrical power was going. The thing seemed dependent
on whether the upstairs and downstairs switches were in either the
raised or lowered position- there were four possible conditions: both
up; both down; downstairs down/upstairs up: or the reverse. And this
meant that any attempt to change the light's status seemed to have a
50/50 chance of working via either of the switches being used alone.
Turning off the light at bedtime was a two-person job (there is a joke
in there somewhere) with my mother at the lower switch, and myself or my
siblings at the upper one, with one or both switches being thrown as needed.
Oddly enough, my present apartment has the same problem with it's two
switches to the living room power outlet that controls the main
lights...with both up, the lights are on; I can shut them off by turning
either of the switches to the down position- this sounds like you
said...that they are wired in series.
Whatever was going on at the house seemed more involved than this; as
there were times when the light could not be turned _off_ when either of
the switches was thrown on its own.

Pat

[Herb Schaltegger]

Pat Flannery wrote:

> Whatever was going on at the house seemed more involved than this; as
> there were times when the light could not be turned off when either of
> the switches was thrown on its own.

Did you ever consult a priest in consideration of the required exorcism?

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

[Pat Flannery]

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

>Consider the U-2 as the first system ("system" == Skunk Works spy plane
>sophisticated enough to overfly the USSR). CL-400 would then be the
>second system, and it shows the hubris common in the second system
>effect. The Blackbird would then be the third system, showing a bit of
>humility.
>

The U-2 was a highly modified F-104 Starfighter at heart. There wasn't
any commonality of mission except that both the U-2 and CL-400 were
designed to overfly the same place at high altitude; U-2 was subsonic
and the only even marginally radical technology that it incorporated
were its engine which had a redesigned compressor stage for high
altitude operation and it high-altitude fuel- which was basically "Flit"
big repellent; both the CL-400 and the Blackbird incorporated
breakthrough technologies in regards to structure and propulsion (and
even fuel in regards to the LH2 driven Suntan), and were designed to
posses performance well beyond the state of the art of then-current
aircraft (sustained long-range Mach 2+ flight at over 80,000 feet- only
the canceled F-108 Rapier and soon-to-be canceled B-70 Valkyrie were
getting into that area of design performance at the time).

>
>
>>In the same way, the Space Shuttle would probably have been quite
>>differently if we had it to do all over again after years of experience
>>with he one we have,
>>
>>
>
>North American's first manned spaceship was the Apollo CSM. Their second
>was the Shuttle. The early Shuttle goals of being the one and only
>universal, cheap, reusable spacecraft shows the the hubris of the second
>system effect.
>

Don't forget North American's _other_ spaceship- the X-15- that preceded
Apollo; and the learning curve for Apollo was very steep, particularly
given the fact that manned ballistic capsules had been built before in
the Mercury and Gemini programs; Apollo went through a redesign after
the fire, showing the "if you had the chance to do it all over again"
effect to some extent.
That being said, the Shuttle was a _very_ large step to take up from
Apollo in all regards- and did indeed show a large degree of hubris in
its conception and construction. Trying to build it the way we did was
like trying to go straight from the DC-3 to the 747 in one leap. I'll
bet there would have been some major changes to the Orbiter TPS if we
had 20 or so Dyna-Soar flights under our belt before starting to design it.

Pat

[Chris Jones]

Pat Flannery > writes:

> Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
>>Could this be a three-way switch, which allows more than one switch to
>>control a light? Or did some moron wire them in series?
>>
> Well, I can tell you what it did, and maybe you can figure it out from there;
> the switches were at the top and bottom of the upstairs/downstairs staircase- I
> think the intention was that you could flip either switch to cause the
> upstairs' hallway light to go from its present status (on/off) to the opposite
> status...but sometimes flipping one would have no effect whatsoever on the
> light- and it could be either one-

Sounds like wired in PARALLEL, not series.

[Chris Jones]

Pat Flannery > writes:

[...]

> The U-2 was a highly modified F-104 Starfighter at heart.

Could you elaborate on this? The two aircraft seem almost nothing alike
to me. The F-104 couldn't glide to save its pilot's life, while the U-2
was basically a powered glider.

[Scott Hedrick]

Greg, ol' chap, the losers might whine about cheating, but all you did was
interpret the rules creatively.

I went to a programming contest many years ago. One problem was certain
tricks with Compaq basic...

One of the problems involved creating a program to enter ten numbers, then
sort them in ascending, descending, and random order. Thanks to Compaq
basic, my group could never get the random part to work right. The winners
did something that some might consider cheating, but I think rather
brilliantly fulfilled the requirements. They figured the judges wouldn't
test the program more than 4 times. They programmed four DATA lines with
random numbers. From the judge's point of view (and they only tested it
three times), the numbers *were* random.

That night, I asked them how they overcame something that the 21 other teams
couldn't solve. When I learned what they did, I laughed so hard I almost got
tossed from the hotel.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

Pat, it sounds like you have old, gummy three-way switches. It requires 4
wires, white (neutral), black (hot), red (swings either way) and bare
(ground).

Old switches (especially with Bakelite) can get gummy and slow down the
internal workings, depending on how warm they get.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Derek Lyons]

Pat Flannery > wrote:

>Don't forget North American's _other_ spaceship- the X-15- that preceded
>Apollo; and the learning curve for Apollo was very steep, particularly
>given the fact that manned ballistic capsules had been built before in
>the Mercury and Gemini programs; Apollo went through a redesign after
>the fire, showing the "if you had the chance to do it all over again"
>effect to some extent.

Part of the problem is that Apollo was being designed at the same time
Gemini was. It's a sibling, not a sucessor.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

[Pat Flannery]

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

>Did you ever consult a priest in consideration of the required exorcism?
>
The only thing I can make of it is that the wiring between the two
switches was very screwed up; sometimes throwing the downstairs one
would cause the upstairs light to momentarily dim before it resumed its
usual brightness...to me it seemed that the electric current was seeking
a new path to the light that took it a bit to find.
The house had one other oddity about it...everything ferrous in it would
get magnetized to a greater or lesser degree over time- all the tools
(not just screwdrivers, but everything from wrenchs to hammers to
rulers) could pick up screws within a year after they were purchased; as
could the knives, forks, and spoons. Any watch that wasn't non-magnetic
would quit within a week or two.
The effect with the utensils is particularly odd when you consider that
they were made out of stainless steel- not a terribly magnetic
substance. I still have some of the old utensils and tools from there, I
just checked one of the knives, and it's lost its magnetism... but the
big wrought-iron C-clamps still have some residual magnetism on them,
though nowhere near as severe as when they were at the house.

Pat "Magneto" Flannery

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>
>That night, I asked them how they overcame something that the 21 other teams
>couldn't solve. When I learned what they did, I laughed so hard I almost got
>tossed from the hotel.
>

James T. Kirk would have approved.

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>Pat, it sounds like you have old, gummy three-way switches. It requires 4
>wires, white (neutral), black (hot), red (swings either way) and bare
>(ground).
>
>Old switches (especially with Bakelite) can get gummy and slow down the
>internal workings, depending on how warm they get.
>
These didn't slow down, they would just try, sometimes dim the light
momentarily, or make it illuminate momentarily... and go right back
off...then give up...at least the house ones.
The apartment ones are obviously wired in series. God knows how the
house ones were wired.
Would it be possible to wire them in such a way so that they were
connected in two different ways at once? Sort of in series, and sort of
the way they were supposed to be?* The effect was like the electricity
couldn't make up its mind immediately as to what it wanted to do...you
could flip the bottom switch up and down till you were blue in the face
without any effect on the upstairs light's illumination status. Could
they have been wired in series in such a way that they were normally in
the "on" position, and to turn the light off required _both_ to be
turned to the "off" position? That- plus your sticky switch hypothesis-
would seem to come close to explaining the observed behavior.

(*Remember...you are dealing with _North Dakotan_ electricians here...I
will tell you a story about what happens when Nodak electricians and
plumbers get together to work on a hot-water heating furnace:
A few years ago, my landlords decided to install a new high-efficiency
furnace in my apartment building (an 8-plex). This would seem a
straightforward job for a plumbing company and a electrician ...and if
they had lived in a larger- and more competent- city, such professionals
could be found.
But Jamestown is a dinky-town, and full of dinkytown dinks, among them
"Jokeoid's Plumbing And 'Tricity Works; Home Of The Prairie
Incompetents"- these whiffle-headed semi-sentients have been spreading
wreck and ruin across the city like a thin but clinging layer of manure
for decades- they are the ones who sent the Roto-Rooter into one
toilet....and out of another one in the same building...luckily, while
no one was sitting on it. They are also the ones that repaired the
ruptured radiator pipe in my apartment, and were ready to turn the water
supply back on when I reminded them that all the best plumbers solder-
rather than merely press fit- the copper pipes together...
The work of these rude mechanicals in regard to this project was up to
their usual 3 Stooges standard; they replaced the furnace, backed their
truck into my parked car, smashing the headlight; and left the scene of
the accident without notifying myself or the police. It was only later,
when I discovered that my apartment thermostat had no influence on the
flow of water through the radiator, that the slight oversight in their
workmanship revealed itself- having removed the old furnace after
detaching the eight sets of wires that led to the control valves to each
apartment's hot water supply, they had neglected to number them, and
reattached them at random...so that I controlled the temperature in one
of the other seven apartments, and another unknown apartment controlled
mine.
This took a few hours to fix; while they were fixing it, the managed to
shut off the water heater... and forget to restart it.... so that
everyone got to have cold showers that night.)

Pat

[Henry Spencer]

In article >, Chris Jones > wrote:
>> The U-2 was a highly modified F-104 Starfighter at heart.
>
>Could you elaborate on this? The two aircraft seem almost nothing alike
>to me. The F-104 couldn't glide to save its pilot's life, while the U-2
>was basically a powered glider.

Some of the early U-2 design sketches show a Starfighter with greatly
stretched wings. It evolved somewhat from there, but Pat's comment (note
the "at heart") part is basically correct.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Jonathan Silverlight]

In message >, Chris Jones >
writes
>Pat Flannery > writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> The U-2 was a highly modified F-104 Starfighter at heart.
>
>Could you elaborate on this? The two aircraft seem almost nothing alike
>to me. The F-104 couldn't glide to save its pilot's life, while the U-2
>was basically a powered glider.

Pat probably knows more than I do, but Chris Pocock's book "Dragon Lady"
explains how the CL-282 proposal "married an F-104 fuselage to a new,
500 sq. ft wing. The aircraft would have been launched from a wheeled
dolley and landed on a single skid which retracted into the lower
fuselage".
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

[Dale]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:47:42 -0500, Chris Jones > wrote:

>> The U-2 was a highly modified F-104 Starfighter at heart.
>
>Could you elaborate on this? The two aircraft seem almost nothing alike
>to me. The F-104 couldn't glide to save its pilot's life, while the U-2
>was basically a powered glider.

NASA TV showed an old film on the X planes last night, with emphasis
on the X-15. I'm not sure when it was made, but they said a couple of
times that the X-15 had flown 120 missions to date, so I guess I could
look it up :)

Well, they didn't say (IIRC) that the U-2 was derived from the F-104, but
they did show footage of a modified F-104 G (I think that was the variant)
that pilots used to simulate/practice the landing phase of the U-2 before
they flew the real thing. So, at least this modified F-104 must have had
characteristics pretty similar to a U-2...

Dale

Incidently, I have "gummy" 60 year old three-way switches between
my house and garage controlling the back porch light that act as
though they are possessed as well :)

[Pat Flannery]

Chris Jones wrote:

>
>
>
>> The U-2 was a highly modified F-104 Starfighter at heart.
>>
>>
>
>Could you elaborate on this? The two aircraft seem almost nothing alike
>to me. The F-104 couldn't glide to save its pilot's life, while the U-2
>was basically a powered glider.
>
The U-2 got started as one of Kelly Johnson's UFO's (Un-Funded
Opportunities). When Lockheed came up with a new aircraft design, they
started looking for other tasks for other customers that the same basic
design could be modified into- to up orders, and profits, for the
company; some examples of this were the bomber variant of the U-2 (I kid
you not!) for the U.S. Navy; and a SAC bomber variant of the SR-71, as
well as the YF-12 fighter variant.
In this case it was the F-104 that got the once-over in regards to what
could be done with the basic design; a proposal was put forward that it
be equipped with long sailplane-like wings, have its landing gear
removed, be launched from a jettisonable trolley, and belly land on a
strengthened belly or skid at the end of it's mission- this was the 1954
project CL-282: http://www.ufx.org/images/cl282.jpg Johnson told the
CIA and Air Force that this could be done fast and cheap if they were
interested, as an alternative to the Bell X-16, Martin RB-57 and
Fairchild M-195 responses to the classified MX-2147 reconnaissance
aircraft program.
They _were_ interested, but wanted the CL-282's J73-GE-3 engine replaced
with their preferred choice, the J57; and this was not going to fit well
into a stock F-104 fuselage, so Lockheed began to modify and optimize
the design some more to make it into a more practical machine (the tail
got changed; the landing gear returned in a lighter bicycle arrangement)
and CL-282 evolved into the U-2.... and Bell Aircraft got screwed over,
having won the MX-2147 program with its X-16 "Bald Eagle" entry... only
to find out it had lost to a company that wasn't even in the original
competition, and whose design it had no knowledge of- as it was highly
classified!
Now you know how the other competitors felt when Lockheed arrived with
it's unsolicited design in the Have Blue competition for a stealth
aircraft demonstrator....
The U-2's other possible ancestor is not well known- during W.W.II, the
Luftwaffe wanted a high-altitude reconnaissance plane that could operate
above the altitude limits of Allied interceptor aircraft; since jets
weren't well enough developed yet to reach the designed altitudes with
reliability, the hydrogen-peroxide and methanol fueled rocket motor of
the ME-163 was chosen, and the the airframe design entrusted to the DFS
glider-building establishment; they built the DFS-228
(CL-_282_...DFS-_228_...h-m-m-m):
http://www.luft46.com/roart/ro228-2.jpg , and test flew it in gliding
flight, but the Walter rocket motor did not react well to the cold of
high altitudes, and the project went nowhere.

Pat

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> > One corollary of Moore's Law that is well known within the software
> > industry: as the capabilities of computer hardware increase, the
> > difficulty of writing the software to exploite these capabilties
> > increases exponentially. A more powerful computers can be a liability as
> > it encourages a much more complex system with many more points of
> > failure.
>
> Wierdly enough, you generally don't *need* all the capabilities
> of the new chip.

True. Resisting the temptation to make use of all the goodies is often
hard. It takes engineering good taste to just ignore all those
interesting new doodads.

Also, there is a misunderstanding of the fact that good software
development is *hard*. Often, it is harder than the hardware
engineering. Yet the hardware guys often make their life easier by
pushing new requirements on the software, make the software ever harder
to get right.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Hallerb]

>
>Well, I can tell you what it did, and maybe you can figure it out from
>there; the switches were at the top and bottom of the
>upstairs/downstairs staircase- I think

Improperly wired 3 way switch. I have personal experience with that unpleasant
problem

[Hop David]

Pat Flannery wrote:

> The house had one other oddity about it...everything ferrous in it would
> get magnetized to a greater or lesser degree over time


Maybe the wires formed a helix and you grew up in a giant solenoid.
Hmmm. This might explain some things.

Did Evor Shandar design the house?

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

[Pat Flannery]

Hop David wrote:

>
>
> Maybe the wires formed a helix and you grew up in a giant solenoid.
> Hmmm. This might explain some things.
>
> Did Evor Shandar design the house?


Are _you_ the Gate Keeper?

Pat

[Herb Schaltegger]

Pat Flannery wrote:

>
>
> Hop David wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Maybe the wires formed a helix and you grew up in a giant solenoid.
>> Hmmm. This might explain some things.
>>
>> Did Evor Shandar design the house?
>
>
> Are _you_ the Gate Keeper?

No, but the Super's gonna be ****ed. I wonder: is your house listed in
Tobin's Spirit Guide?

> Pat

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
Reformed Aerospace Engineer
Remove invalid nonsense for email.

[Rick DeNatale]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 21:10:14 +0000, Derek Lyons wrote:

> Part of the problem is that Apollo was being designed at the same time
> Gemini was. It's a sibling, not a sucessor.

Maybe more like a cousin. It's been pointed out that the Apollo CM had
more in common with Mercury than with Gemini.

Mercury and Apollo were both designed by Max Faget and his team at NASA.
Gemini was designed by McDonnell who, although they built Mercury, didn't
do the basic design.

[Rick DeNatale]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:30:58 -0500, Kevin Willoughby wrote:

> Also, there is a misunderstanding of the fact that good software
> development is *hard*. Often, it is harder than the hardware
> engineering. Yet the hardware guys often make their life easier by
> pushing new requirements on the software, make the software ever harder
> to get right.

All too often the hardware guys put a lot of effort into building hardware
features which are intended to make the software easier or faster, but
miss the boat because they do the wrong part of the job. For example,
early graphics accelerators often got in the way of doing what the
software needed to do.

Complicated architectures can indeed make it difficult to make good
software like compilers. The code optimizers would like to see a machine
with either ONE really fast register, or an infinite number, anything in
between makes the optimization job difficult.

I remember an old quote "it's impossible to both understand and appreciate
Intel architecture."

[Scott Hedrick]

"Hallerb" > wrote in message
...
> I have personal experience with that unpleasant
> problem

You have a lot of unpleasant problems- they're called *posts*. Most of them
would be much less unpleasant if you'd do your homework *first* instead of
talking out of your ass and then hoping someone else will try to support
you.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[G.Beat]

"OM" <om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_research _facility.org> wrote
in message ...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:46:22 -0600, Pat Flannery >
> wrote:
>
> >And hurl it into the crater of Olympus Mons....yes, there is a distinct
> >pagan south seas island feel to the concept. And Beagle was a virgin, in
> >that the design was not screwed around with much.
>
> ...Of course, you kids realize that to date, only one Beagle has had a
> successful mission in space?
>
> OM

Yes sir, and Stafford was the commander - and Cernan was the pilot.

gb

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
> The house had one other oddity about it...everything ferrous in it would
> get magnetized to a greater or lesser degree over time

This was one of the ways the house was saying *get out*. Blood oozing down
the walls is another.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>This was one of the ways the house was saying *get out*. Blood oozing down
>the walls is another.
>

REDRUM! REDRUM!
All in all, I'd prefer the manifestation to be Ann-Margret in a mass of
beans.

Pat

[Kelly McDonald]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:07:03 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

>Kelly McDonald > wrote:
>
>>However you make up for the failures with more projects.
>
>Well, that's somewhat akin to selling something at a loss, and making
>up the difference on volume. Flying ten cheap probes and loosing
>three or four of them seems like a good idea, but what of the science
>return?

Why is it like selling at a loss? Successful FBC probes still return
science. Its the difference between having your entire sales team
focus on a single billion dollar contract that the whole future of the
company rests on, or have them pursue a number of smaller hundred
million dollar contracts.

Kelly McDonald
>
>D.

[Michael Gallagher]

On 27 Dec 2003 16:43:53 GMT, rk >
wrote:

>Lunar Prospector.
>

Thank you.

[Michael Gallagher]

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:10:37 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

>Maintaining a ship in flight is *far* more complex than that.
>

Way I figure it, it'd be a lot more complex if you don't have members
of the crew dedicated to doing just that, esepcaily given you'd be
months/years from getting back to Earth for repairs.

[Mary Shafer]

On 31 Dec 2003 01:55:22 GMT, rk >
wrote:

> Mary Shafer wrote:
>
> > On 28 Dec 2003 13:03:54 GMT, rk wrote:
> >
> >> Mary Shafer wrote:
> >>
> >> > And the review chair needs to learn more about how to run a
> >> > review. I used to threaten grammarians with physical injury
> >> > (usually withholding doughnuts) when I was a chair. Only if
> >> > meaning is obscured are such issues worth discussing.
> >> > Otherwise, mark your copy, because you'll be giving it to
> >> > the author after the review.
> >>
> >> Surprised you didn't get in trouble with the union.
> >> Withholding donuts is definitely cause for a ULP.
> >
> > Dryden didn't have one for the engineers (maybe still don't).
>
> I thought all federal, non-supervisory, civilian workers in GS
> ratings (not SES and GM is gone, IIRC) were covered by an agreement
> negotiated by the union; union membership is optional.

Not that I ever heard of. About when I retired, some union was
generating some mild action at Dryden, mostly on account of Dryden
changing schedules or first 40 or flex-time or something having
everyone affected in an uproar. However, it was purely at the "sign
up for more info if you're interested" stage.

> > Kidding aside, there's nothing worse than three engineers
> > arguing about whether the subject and predicate numbers match.
> > The classic example is "one of these is/are", which is easy in
> > this stripped form but gets harder as clauses and adjectives
> > are added. I was in a review that must have spent a quarter of
> > an hour on one of those once.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Ouch. Surely there are more important things to argue over. Those
> grammar things, as you say, can be handled later.

You wouldn't think so if you were there. Apparently the fate of the
free world hangs on a grammatical point.

> Units are worth arguing over. And good graphs.

We rarely argue over units, although figures can inspire some
reviewers to new heights.

> And of course the engineering.

By the time something gets to peer review (we used to call this
"editorial review" and it's the technical review of a document before
handing it over to the editors), the basic engineering is already
fairly sound. What we spent most of our time on was whether or not
everything was explained clearly and logically. This is context
dependent, of course, since different audiences require different
approaches.

The biggest problems, in general, were keeping conclusions out of the
results sections and being sure all the results got mentioned in the
results section before drawing conclusions from them. Also, drumming
home the idea that technical reports are not mysteries and convincing
the author to not produce surprises at the end, in general.

The worst peer review I ever chaired was for a fellow who was the
Chief Engineer on a project. He'd submitted an abstract to AIAA on
the basis of a flight research schedule that collapsed; I think the
vehicle hadn't even been flown and here he was, committed to a paper
on the initial results. He'd written a management overview kind of
paper in desperation, but this is something AIAA really doesn't like
to have at technical conferences. We ended up suggesting that he
withdraw the paper, rather than give the substitute, and bailed on the
review. However, I told the author that I'd go with him to explain
the decision to his boss, the reports people, and AIAA. He wasn't
very thrilled with our decision, but he dealt well with it. I hated
it, because I'm very soft-hearted. Not so soft-hearted that I gave in
on the issue just because he already had it written, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Mary Shafer]

The way the messages arrived, I went from reading:

> Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
> >This was one of the ways the house was saying *get out*. Blood oozing down
> >the walls is another.
>
> REDRUM! REDRUM!
> All in all, I'd prefer the manifestation to be Ann-Margret in a mass of
> beans.

by Pat Flannery, to reading this:

> How would you classify the Block II Apollo spacecraft?

by rk. It took me a moment to realize I'd changed threads and
subjects and rk wasn't expecting the Block II Apollo spacecraft to
have blood oozing down the walls or Ann-Margaret manifesting in a mass
of beans. It does paint an interesting picture, though.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Mary Shafer wrote:
> > Kidding aside, there's nothing worse than three engineers
> > arguing about whether the subject and predicate numbers match.
> > The classic example is "one of these is/are", which is easy in
> > this stripped form but gets harder as clauses and adjectives
> > are added. I was in a review that must have spent a quarter of
> > an hour on one of those once.
>
> [ snip ]
>
> Ouch. Surely there are more important things to argue over.

Wild speculation: those grammarians were not the best engineers, yes?

My observation is that although some of the best engineers worry about
careful wordsmithing, they also have good instincts about choosing which
issues are worth a lot of time and attention.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Pat Flannery]

Mary Shafer wrote:

>by rk. It took me a moment to realize I'd changed threads and
>subjects and rk wasn't expecting the Block II Apollo spacecraft to
>have blood oozing down the walls or Ann-Margaret manifesting in a mass
>of beans. It does paint an interesting picture, though.
>
>
>
Now I'm going to have images of Roger Daltrey manically working the
controls on the LM, while Elton John stands by in ten-foot-high Moon Boots.

Pat

[Scott Lowther]

Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> Ann-Margaret ...
> Roger Daltrey ...
> Elton John ...

Jeebus H. Superman. What is this... a "Spot The Cultural Reference From
A Bajillion Years Ago" contest?

Cripes...next there'll be references to "Kitten With A Whip," "Manos:
The Hands of Fate" and other things I'd never've heard of had it not
been for MST3K.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

[David Lesher]

Hop David > writes:



>Pat Flannery wrote:

>> The house had one other oddity about it...everything ferrous in it would
>> get magnetized to a greater or lesser degree over time


>Maybe the wires formed a helix and you grew up in a giant solenoid.
>Hmmm. This might explain some things.

>Did Evor Shandar design the house?


And He Built a Crooked House....


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Neil Gerace]

"Scott Lowther" > wrote in message
...
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >
> > Ann-Margaret ...
> > Roger Daltrey ...
> > Elton John ...
>
> Jeebus H. Superman. What is this... a "Spot The Cultural Reference From
> A Bajillion Years Ago" contest?
>
> Cripes...next there'll be references to "Kitten With A Whip," "Manos:
> The Hands of Fate" and other things I'd never've heard of had it not
> been for MST3K.

Well, no-one's mentioned Julie Newmar yet, so there's still hope until
someone does.

[OM]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 16:12:06 +0800, "Neil Gerace"
> wrote:

>Well, no-one's mentioned Julie Newmar yet, so there's still hope until
>someone does.

....Please don't. She was so biffledinked on whatever she was on back
then that I still can't stand to see "Batman" episodes featuring her
as Catwoman any more than I could with Eartha "I was the prototype for
Rae Dawn Chong" Kitt in the role. And having seen a few eps of "My
Living Doll", I can understand why Bob Cummings couldn't get along
with her.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Neil Gerace]

"Mary Shafer" > wrote in message
...
> It took me a moment to realize I'd changed threads and
> subjects and rk wasn't expecting the Block II Apollo spacecraft to
> have blood oozing down the walls or Ann-Margaret manifesting in a mass
> of beans. It does paint an interesting picture, though.

You might think that, I couldn't possibly comment :)

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Lowther wrote:

>
>
>Jeebus H. Superman. What is this... a "Spot The Cultural Reference From
>A Bajillion Years Ago" contest?
>
No, this is "Spot the movie with the Babe-O-Licious Ann-Margret" in it.

>
>Cripes...next there'll be references to "Kitten With A Whip," "Manos:
>The Hands of Fate" and other things I'd never've heard of had it not
>been for MST3K.
>

Actually, I always wanted to see "Kitten With A Whip"...and "The
Swinger" also. An actress with here million sex-volt star-power would
never demean herself to appearing in anything as cheap and exploitive
as "Manos: the Hands Of Fate"!
She is a QUALITY actress, and one of the most beautiful and cunning
Soviet agents ever seen outside of a James Bond film:
http://home.pacbell.net/hrwhite3/AnnMargret.htm ....her use of her
stunning body in the aid of Communist Indoctrination, Communist
Subversion, and The International Communist Conspiracy has sapped more
than one man's precious bodily fluids, I'll have you know! ....and along
with the Commie Clique of Lemmon, Matthau, and Loren she is still able
to put the "Red" in Redhead any day of the week. Why, in KGB
headquarters they have a ten-foot-high white marble bust of her...and a
sculpture of her head also! :-)

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Neil Gerace wrote:

>Well, no-one's mentioned Julie Newmar yet, so there's still hope until
>someone does.
>
Purr-fect... I'd like to push that living doll's button any day of the week!
Now, regarding Jill St. John.... who once appeared leaning out of a
window as Batman and the Boy Wonder ascended a building (maybe I
shouldn't say "ascended" in front of a confirmed bachelor like Bruce
Wayne, and his..."ward"). Was she hotter in "Tony Rome" or in "Diamonds
Are Forever"?

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>And having seen a few eps of "My
>Living Doll", I can understand why Bob Cummings couldn't get along
>with her.
>
>
>

You've never been the same regarding female androids since Daryl Hannah
put that leg lock on your head at Worldcon 97, have you?

Pat

[OM]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:37:23 -0600, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>Now, regarding Jill St. John.... who once appeared leaning out of a
>window as Batman and the Boy Wonder ascended a building...

....<BZZZZZZZZT!!!> Sorry, Pat, but that wasn't where she was seen. She
impersonated Robin for one episode, and wound up falling into the core
of the Batcave's atomic power plant.


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 07:48:04 -0600, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>You've never been the same regarding female androids since Daryl Hannah
>put that leg lock on your head at Worldcon 97, have you?

....Actually, I lost all interest in Hannah when she hooked up with
that tree-hugging hippie communist, Jackson Brown. No taste, that gal.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> > North American's first manned spaceship was the Apollo CSM.
> > Their second was the Shuttle. The early Shuttle goals of being
> > the one and only universal, cheap, reusable spacecraft shows
> > the the hubris of the second system effect.
>
> How would you classify the Block II Apollo spacecraft?

A debugged version of the first generation spacecraft. They fixed a lot
of problems, but the goals didn't change, and the overall architecture
was pretty much the same. 3 man crew, expendable, two week duration, CM
& SM, a big enough rocket to do lunar orbit entry/exit, pure oxygen
atmosphere, fuel cells for electricity, ocean splashdown rather than
wheels and runway landing ...
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>...<BZZZZZZZZT!!!> Sorry, Pat, but that wasn't where she was seen. She
>impersonated Robin for one episode, and wound up falling into the core
>of the Batcave's atomic power plant.
>
She also appeared as herself leaning out of the window once; although
now that you mention it, the other one also sounds familiar.
Indeed, a quick Google search reveals:
http://www.geocities.com/~1966/gueststar1.htm

Patman

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

> No taste, that gal.
>
>
>

Funny, she always reminded me of "Oysters ala' Madison Avenue".


The Ghost of John-John

[OM]

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:53:03 -0600, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>OM wrote:
>
>>...<BZZZZZZZZT!!!> Sorry, Pat, but that wasn't where she was seen. She
>>impersonated Robin for one episode, and wound up falling into the core
>>of the Batcave's atomic power plant.

>She also appeared as herself leaning out of the window once; although
>now that you mention it, the other one also sounds familiar.
>Indeed, a quick Google search reveals:
>http://www.geocities.com/~1966/gueststar1.htm

....And yet that, and an IMDB search, show no listing for the wall
crawl cameo. I suspect brain damage from the last fol-de-rol in the
sands with one of your fire women has damaged your memory, and you're
probably confusing Ted Cassidy as Lurch, who did do a wall cameo.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>...And yet that, and an IMDB search, show no listing for the wall
>crawl cameo. I suspect brain damage from the last fol-de-rol in the
>sands with one of your fire women has damaged your memory, and you're
>probably confusing Ted Cassidy as Lurch, who did do a wall cameo.
>
>
There are things I might be wrong about...these include any fact about
rocket science, math, or the world in general...but I DID see her
leaning out of a window in one particular Batman episode...and the
reason that I remember this particular woman's appearance in that
particular episode is for the simple and straightforward reason that she
also appeared in one of my father's pulp magazines when I was around 15
years old ("Saga", I think; although it could also be "True" or
"Argosy"), wearing a black lace bra, black lace bikini panties, black
lace garter belt, and sheer black stockings with high heels....later in
that photo shoot she was wearing all of the above... except the bra. I
was caught by my mother ogling the "article"... at which point I was in
deep trouble...and my father's subscription to the magazine was canceled
on the spot.
Many women I might forget...Jill St. John is not one of them, as this
was my first good look at bare tit.
I've been hooked on redheads ever since.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Pat Flannery wrote:

>
> Many women I might forget...Jill St. John is not one of them, as this
> was my first good look at bare tit.
> I've been hooked on redheads ever since.
>

Next.... you swine...you are going to say that a careful search of
history has revealed no evidence whatsoever that "Jill" (yes- _HER_ fans
are allowed to call Jill Oppenheim by her first name ) ever appeared on
"The Hollywood Squares"!
WE SHALL NONE OF THAT ****, Mr. "I-Don't-Like-Any-Mermaid-Named-Madison"
Mosley!
This woman is _THE_ Saucy Redhead incarnate!

In a complete tizzy over red-headed titty... :-)

Pat

[Gordon Davie]

OM wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 14:53:03 -0600, Pat Flannery >
> wrote:
>
>> OM wrote:
>>
>>> ...<BZZZZZZZZT!!!> Sorry, Pat, but that wasn't where she was seen.
>>> She impersonated Robin for one episode, and wound up falling into
>>> the core of the Batcave's atomic power plant.
>
>> She also appeared as herself leaning out of the window once; although
>> now that you mention it, the other one also sounds familiar.
>> Indeed, a quick Google search reveals:
>> http://www.geocities.com/~1966/gueststar1.htm
>
> ...And yet that, and an IMDB search, show no listing for the wall
> crawl cameo. I suspect brain damage from the last fol-de-rol in the
> sands with one of your fire women has damaged your memory, and you're
> probably confusing Ted Cassidy as Lurch, who did do a wall cameo.

The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St John.
It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
> I
> was caught by my mother ogling the "article"...

With your "article" in the other hand, no doubt.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Gordon Davie" > wrote in message
...
> OM wrote:
> you're
> > probably confusing Ted Cassidy as Lurch, who did do a wall cameo.
>
> The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St
John.
> It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.

Better Bill Dana than Lurch as Jose.
--
If you have had problems with Illinois Student Assistance Commission (ISAC),
please contact shredder at bellsouth dot net. There may be a class-action
lawsuit
in the works.

[Pat Flannery]

Gordon Davie wrote:

>The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St John.
>It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.
>
Now I'm confused...was it in "Batman- the Movie"? I could have sworn I
saw her leaning out of a window as the Dynamic Dou climbed past...

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>I
>>was caught by my mother ogling the "article"...
>>
>>
>
>With your "article" in the other hand, no doubt.
>
Luckily no- unlike George Castanza, I never got caught doing
that...although it was shortly after the JSJ incident that the book
about Roman Catholics and sex showed up on my bed one day, and to my
horror I discovered that doing that particular thing you mentioned above
would send me to Hell.... along with most of the rest of the human race.
It was around this same time that mom gave up on Cosmopolitan magazine,
as it had become too slutty. By the way, the pictures of Jill were in
either the June 1967 "Saga" magazine or the July 1971 issue of the same
magazine- and I'm pretty sure it was the 67 one, as it was out on the
enclosed porch with other old mags, and according to my "Glamour Girls
Of The Century" she was semi-nude in that one.
Do the pulp magazines like Saga, True, and Argosy even exist any more?
They combined articles on war, women and dangerous animals with racy,
but topless at most, pictures of women and a strong right-wing
bent...basicly something that dad could sneak into a house in which
Playboy had been banned... where would my life have been without them? I
learned all about killing commies in the Nam, giant German bombers of WW
I....and the terrible Candiru fish of the Amazon- a creature far less
appealing to a particular male organ than Jill St. John would be:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000519.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candiruhttp://www.straightdope.com/columns/000519.html

Pat (who is NEVER going to swim in the Amazon unless forced to at gunpoint.)

[OM]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:44:24 -0600, Pat Flannery >
wrote:


>Gordon Davie wrote:
>
>>The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St John.
>>It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.

....This is correct. Incedentally, I posted a request on one of the MP3
binary groups for any of Dana's Jose stuff. I got five replies, all
calling me a "gringo puta". Then they turned around and posted
fill-ins for the collected works of Johnny Rebel. Go figure.

>Now I'm confused...was it in "Batman- the Movie"? I could have sworn I
>saw her leaning out of a window as the Dynamic Dou climbed past...

....Pat, I hate to break it to you, but Henry Kissinger's former love
slave made only one appearance, and she got killed for it.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[OM]

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 07:42:09 -0600, Pat Flannery >
wrote:

>This woman is _THE_ Saucy Redhead incarnate!

Q: If you had to choose between Ann-Margaret and Jill St. John, which
would you choose?

A: There's enough of me to go around, they're *both* in trouble,
natch!

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Pat Flannery]

OM wrote:

>
>Q: If you had to choose between Ann-Margaret and Jill St. John, which
>would you choose?
>
>A: There's enough of me to go around, they're *both* in trouble,
>natch!
>
>
>
Jill St. John would out-saucy you with her Sinatra-trained Rat Pack
language, and Ann-Margret kick you into insensibility with her
Spetsnaz-trained gorgeous legs!
Mere mortals must only approach these Sex-Sirens with greatest care,
lest they are destroyed by the overwhelming sensuality of these
Voluptuous Vixens...like a moth caught in the flame of an oxyacetylene
torch!
But you stay FAR away from Milla Jovovitch, or you can expect the same
type of severe keyboard lashing that "The Beast Of Budapest" -Tamas
Feher- received when he tried to spirit her away via his ancient
Atlantian time machine, with the aid of the sexually twisted Andrea
Thompson....as part of _her_ sick plot to once again get inside the
pants of the ever-so-pure and innocent Claudia Christian...and reek
Psi-Corp/CNN havoc there with her gloveless hands!
So you just remember that...you kooky cat! :-P

Pat- The Chairman Of The Broad

[Hop David]

Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>
> Gordon Davie wrote:
>
>> The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St
>> John.
>> It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.
>>
> Now I'm confused...was it in "Batman- the Movie"? I could have sworn I
> saw her leaning out of a window as the Dynamic Dou climbed past...
>
> Pat
>

I haven't seen a batman wall climbing scene in ages. I seem to recall
the ropes sagging towards the building indicating the wall was actually
a floor and the camera was tilted 90 degrees.



--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> This woman is _THE_ Saucy Redhead incarnate!

So. How do you feel about Nicole Kidman?
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Neil Gerace]

"Hop David" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gordon Davie wrote:
> >
> >> The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St
> >> John.
> >> It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.
> >>
> > Now I'm confused...was it in "Batman- the Movie"? I could have sworn I
> > saw her leaning out of a window as the Dynamic Dou climbed past...
> >
> > Pat
> >
>
> I haven't seen a batman wall climbing scene in ages. I seem to recall
> the ropes sagging towards the building indicating the wall was actually
> a floor and the camera was tilted 90 degrees.

That's true. I think the capes were held parallel to the wall with wires.

[Pat Flannery]

Kevin Willoughby wrote:

>
>
>>This woman is _THE_ Saucy Redhead incarnate!
>>
>>
>
>So. How do you feel about Nicole Kidman?
>

Very good in Moulin Rouge, but she has scary eyes... almost as scary as
Cate Blanchett's as Galadriel.

Pat (cowering before the stare of the elf she-witch)

[Dale]

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 10:10:54 -0500, Kevin Willoughby
> wrote:

>So. How do you feel about Nicole Kidman?

Very carefully?

Dale

[Hop David]

Neil Gerace wrote:
> "Hop David" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Pat Flannery wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Gordon Davie wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill St
>>>>John.
>>>>It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Now I'm confused...was it in "Batman- the Movie"? I could have sworn I
>>>saw her leaning out of a window as the Dynamic Dou climbed past...
>>>
>>>Pat
>>>
>>
>>I haven't seen a batman wall climbing scene in ages. I seem to recall
>>the ropes sagging towards the building indicating the wall was actually
>>a floor and the camera was tilted 90 degrees.
>
>
> That's true. I think the capes were held parallel to the wall with wires.
>
>

And how did they achieve false-gravity cues when they had well endowed
guest stars doing window cameos?

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

[Rick DeNatale]

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 11:23:38 -0600, Pat Flannery wrote:

> almost as scary as
> Cate Blanchett's as Galadriel.

Ah yes, the Galadriel lights. They got that effect by reflecting a
small string of white Christmas tree lights in her eyes. Now just where
they found anything related to Christmas in Middle Earth is beyond me.

Did anyone else notice that she didn't have that light effect in her eyes
during her final scene in Return of the King when she took Bilbo, Frodo,
and Gandalf off in the ship from the Grey Havens?

I didn't find Galadriel's eyes spooky at all, and neither did Gimli.

And she looked damn good for a grandmother. Especially since she's the
the grandmother of Arwen.

Ah Arwen Evenstar!

Even giving her the fact that she's considerably younger than Galadriel,
she's FINE looking for a 2777 year old which was her age at the time of
the Lord of the Rings. Of course she was also quite a cradle robber going
after Aragorn, who was a mere lad of 87 at the time!

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Kevin Willoughby" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> says...
> > This woman is _THE_ Saucy Redhead incarnate!
>
> So. How do you feel about Nicole Kidman?

Now that she's left that Scientologist husband of hers, a bit better.

But I have no idea what's up with her latest beau.


> --
> Kevin Willoughby
>
> Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
> for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Gordon Davie]

Neil Gerace wrote:
> "Hop David" > wrote in
> message ...
>>
>> Pat Flannery wrote:
>>>
>>> Gordon Davie wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Official Batman Batbook doesn't show any window cameo for Jill
>>>> St John.
>>>> It does however list one for Bill Dana as Jose Jiminez.
>>>>
>>> Now I'm confused...was it in "Batman- the Movie"? I could have
>>> sworn I saw her leaning out of a window as the Dynamic Dou climbed
>>> past...
>>
>> I haven't seen a batman wall climbing scene in ages. I seem to recall
>> the ropes sagging towards the building indicating the wall was
>> actually a floor and the camera was tilted 90 degrees.
>
> That's true. I think the capes were held parallel to the wall with
> wires.

There's a picture of the building set in the Batbook, obviously taken during
rehearsal as Adam West and Burt Ward are in costume but without masks and
capes, having a joke with Sammy Davis Junior, who's looking (upwards) out of
the window.
--
Gordon Davie
Edinburgh, Scotland

"Slipped the surly bonds of Earth...to touch the face of God"

[Pat Flannery]

Hop David wrote:

>
>
>>
>> That's true. I think the capes were held parallel to the wall with
>> wires.
>>
>>
>
> And how did they achieve false-gravity cues when they had well endowed
> guest stars doing window cameos?


The capes weren't the only things being held parallel to the wall with
wires?

Pat

>
>

[Pat Flannery]

Rick DeNatale wrote:

>I didn't find Galadriel's eyes spooky at all, and neither did Gimli.
>
You don't find someone who turns into a armor-wearing shadow while
starting a windstorm and looking at you with glowing eyes a bit
disconcerting? This is not my idea of a fun date!
Stay FAR away from this babe; she snaps her fingers and you may that
find her conception of "well hung" involves a elven rope suspending you
by the family Silmarills from a Mallorn Tree.
She was a little scary in the books; she was a lot scary in the movies.
Even in that last scene she's looking at you and smiling, and you don't
have a CLUE as to what she's thinking by looking at her face.
I don't know which is scarier; Kate Blanchett as Galadriel in
"Fellowship" or Kathy Valentine as a Go-Go in "Ballbusting with the
Go-Go's" but I wouldn't want either of them around after I had a few too
many Quaaludes.

>And she looked damn good for a grandmother. Especially since she's the
>the grandmother of Arwen.
>
>Ah Arwen Evenstar!
>
>Even giving her the fact that she's considerably younger than Galadriel,
>she's FINE looking for a 2777 year old which was her age at the time of
>the Lord of the Rings. Of course she was also quite a cradle robber going
>after Aragorn, who was a mere lad of 87 at the time!
>

Liv is a lot less scary than Cate, although from the interviews I've
seen with her, I get the feeling that that some fairly unusual chemicals
have gone down the hatch- and up into the command center- in her case;
you can almost see the fairies hovering around her as she
speaks...no...not Ian McKellen.... :-)

Pat

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Pat Flannery > wrote:
>Do the pulp magazines like Saga, True, and Argosy even exist any more?
>They combined articles on war, women and dangerous animals with racy,
>but topless at most, pictures of women and a strong right-wing
>bent...

Haven't seen any of them in a long time... But as of the last few years,
there are a scattering of new magazines which seem to be the inheritors of
the pre-Playboy/Penthouse men's magazines: scantily-dressed babe on the
cover -- magazine covers are basically advertising(*) -- but contents
mostly text, with relatively few pages of photos and no actual nudity or
even toplessness. Haven't paid enough attention to them to establish
their political leanings, if any.

(* Many years ago, the letter column of one of the radio magazines was
asked: "Why do you keep finding excuses to put attractive young women on
the cover?". The answer: "Because we consistently sell more copies that
way, which lets us (a) have more pages of technical content, and (b) get
better technical content by paying our contributors more. As long as it
keeps having that effect, we will keep doing it.")
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Pat Flannery > wrote:
>She was a little scary in the books; she was a lot scary in the movies.
>Even in that last scene she's looking at you and smiling, and you don't
>have a CLUE as to what she's thinking by looking at her face.

Which is, actually, about right. The elves are *supposed* to be weird and
incomprehensible and more than a little scary, not people you'd really
want as neighbors unless you're a bit strange yourself -- "elf-friend" was
not a compliment.

(As a friend of a friend reportedly said, roughly: "Think of the elves as
like the CIA: even if they're officially on your side, you don't really
want to attract their attention.")
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Neil Gerace]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...

> Liv is a lot less scary than Cate, although from the interviews I've
> seen with her, I get the feeling that that some fairly unusual chemicals
> have gone down the hatch- and up into the command center- in her case;
> you can almost see the fairies hovering around her as she
> speaks...no...not Ian McKellen.... :-)

Hanging around backstage at Aerosmith gigs probably did that.

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
> Do the pulp magazines like Saga, True, and Argosy even exist any more?

Not that I'm aware of. But the current equivalent are the glossy, almost
but not quite topless mags like FHM, Stuff, Loaded, Maxim, etc. etc.
etc.
--
Kevin Willoughby

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

[Pat Flannery]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>Which is, actually, about right. The elves are *supposed* to be weird and
>incomprehensible and more than a little scary, not people you'd really
>want as neighbors unless you're a bit strange yourself -- "elf-friend" was
>not a compliment.
>
I thought the scene, and her acting of it, were dead-on-target; Elrond
may be a bit comprehensible, but the elves, and especially one as old
and powerful as her, would be a thing hard to understand, and dangerous
because of that fact...someone once asked Tolkien what, in detail, she
had done that resulted in her exile.. he said that he never did figure
out _exactly_ what it was, but a lot of her pride was wrapped up in it;
and it may have been as much self-imposed as forced upon her...she's a
very tragic figure when you consider it; sitting around waiting for
something that may never happen, changeless, ageless, as she watches
thousand upon thousand of years spin themselves out, with little hope of
her ever experiencing something that she hasn't experienced
hundreds...or thousands of times before. The only time her demeanor
changed in the films was when she turned down Frodo's offer of the
ring...for a second there you could tell she was experiencing strong
emotions...then that inscrutable mask came right back up again.

Pat

[Jim Davis]

Pat Flannery wrote:

> ...someone once asked Tolkien what, in detail, she
> had done that resulted in her exile.. he said that he never did
> figure out _exactly_ what it was, but a lot of her pride was
> wrapped up in it; and it may have been as much self-imposed as
> forced upon her...

????

I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen ROTK)
that her exile was because she was one of the leaders, indeed the
only surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over Morgoth's seizure
of the Silmarils in the First Age.

Her exile was very well deserved and she knew this better than
anyone. Much of the tragic nature of her character is that she knows
she is at least partly responsible for the ills of all three ages of
Middle Earth.

Jim Davis

[Scott Lowther]

Jim Davis wrote:

> I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen ROTK)
> that her exile was because she was one of the leaders, indeed the
> only surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over Morgoth's seizure
> of the Silmarils in the First Age.

Yeah, the Sil seems pretty clear on that.

> Her exile was very well deserved and she knew this better than
> anyone. Much of the tragic nature of her character is that she knows
> she is at least partly responsible for the ills of all three ages of
> Middle Earth.

In the movie version of the LotR, you can easily make out Elronds sense
of guilt. In "Fellowship," he's clearly annoyed with Men, doesn't think
too highly of 'em... but you can tell that a good chunk of that
annoyance is with *himself*, as he didn't drop-kick Isildur's piddly ass
right into the fire when he had the shot. "Hey, buddy!" POW! And the
trouble's over.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

[Pat Flannery]

Jim Davis wrote:

>I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen ROTK)
>that her exile was because she was one of the leaders, indeed the
>only surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over Morgoth's seizure
>of the Silmarils in the First Age.
>

She was in on the revolt... at least to some extent...but exactly what
she did during the revolt that got her into such deep trouble was never
clear (also, how her and Celeborn became married)- this gets examined in
either "The Book Of Lost Tales" or one of the collections of Tolkien's
unfinished writings (which I presently have out on loan, I'll get them
back and get a detailed page ref.) Tolkien would basically sit back and
wait for the inspiration to strike revealing what had happened in any
particular phase of Middle Earth's history; in this case the details
never appeared about the precise nature of the action that led to her
exile. How the Nazgul got to the Shire while being unable to cross
running water was another problem he never worked out (take a peek at a
detailed map of Middle Earth, and its rivers) suffice to say they got
there by a VERY roundabout route if that was indeed the case. First you
leave Mordor...then take a hard right for about 700 miles till you end
up at the tiny gap between the Greylin and Forest Rivers way up north at
the Grey Mountains....then hang a left and clear the Mountains of Angmar
after going around 250 more miles...then another left and around 400
miles till you reach the gap between the River Mithlond and Lake Evendim
up in the Hills of Evendim...then approach Hobbiton from the northwest....
No wonder those fell horses were in such a foul mood!

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Lowther wrote:

>but you can tell that a good chunk of that
>annoyance is with *himself*, as he didn't drop-kick Isildur's piddly ass
>right into the fire when he had the shot. "Hey, buddy!" POW! And the
>trouble's over.
>

Except for that small matter of the War Of Men And Elves that would
follow in around an hour after that- provided that they didn't believe
Elrond's story that: "Isildur went funny in the head...you
know...'funny'...and he went and did a silly thing....he put that ring
on... and then bit off his own finger...and fell into the lava. I swear
to Eru that's what really happened. Cross my heart and hope to never die."

Pat

[Rick DeNatale]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 07:23:43 +0000, Jim Davis wrote:

> I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen ROTK)
> that her exile was because she was one of the leaders, indeed the only
> surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over Morgoth's seizure of the
> Silmarils in the First Age.
>
> Her exile was very well deserved and she knew this better than anyone.
> Much of the tragic nature of her character is that she knows she is at
> least partly responsible for the ills of all three ages of Middle Earth.

In an attempt to bring this thread back on topic with the s.s.h:

The real reason was that the Valar wanted to shut up Hal Ereb, the maia
wannabe, who was under the thrall of the evil Melkor, that the Simarils
were not safe, because the Noldorian Association for Simaril Assurance was
not spending enough time in meetings., after the Feanor, the head of NASA,
refused the Valar government's request to use the Simarils as backup for
the two trees of light after Senator Melkor cut first the tree's funding
and then their roots, and his minion Congresswoman Ungoliant, the ancestor
of Shelob, sucked them dry of their juices.

Galadriel, as the most visible female within NASA management, took on the
role of scapegoat, left Valinor, and sentenced herself to an eternal
series of meetings with Celeborn and a select few in Lothlorien.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Pat Flannery > wrote:
>>Which is, actually, about right. The elves are *supposed* to be weird and
>>incomprehensible and more than a little scary...
>
>I thought the scene, and her acting of it, were dead-on-target...

I thought it was a little on the heavy-handed side myself, especially as
her only major scene. (Haven't seen the extended version yet.) Not
totally out of line, but in need -- like several other scenes -- of a bit
more background and a bit more lead-in.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Jim Davis > wrote:
>I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen ROTK)
>that her exile was because she was one of the leaders, indeed the
>only surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over Morgoth's seizure
>of the Silmarils in the First Age.

Except that everyone else with complicity in the revolt was eventually
forgiven and allowed back into Valinor, she being an explicit exception
for unexplained reasons.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

[Scott Lowther]

Pat Flannery wrote:
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> >but you can tell that a good chunk of that
> >annoyance is with *himself*, as he didn't drop-kick Isildur's piddly ass
> >right into the fire when he had the shot. "Hey, buddy!" POW! And the
> >trouble's over.
> >
>
> Except for that small matter of the War Of Men And Elves that would
> follow in around an hour after that- provided that they didn't believe
> Elrond's story that: "Isildur went funny in the head...

Elrond being an elf... he'd probably say something to the effect of:
"Isildur went to throw the ring into the fire, and the silly human
slipped and fell. Not a thing I could do."

Or more likely... "He fell." And leave it at that.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

[Pat Flannery]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>Except that everyone else with complicity in the revolt was eventually
>forgiven and allowed back into Valinor, she being an explicit exception
>for unexplained reasons.
>
In the sources I cited (Lost Tales and Unfinished Stories) the
implication was that she wasn't about to admit she'd been wrong, and
that her pride kept her on the far side of the sea as much as anything
else; when she finally did have the chance to take The One Ring from
Frodo, and didn't do it, she learned enough about herself, and humility,
to return.

Pat

[Rick DeNatale]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:04:26 +0000, Scott Lowther wrote:

> Elrond being an elf... he'd probably say something to the effect of:
> "Isildur went to throw the ring into the fire, and the silly human
> slipped and fell. Not a thing I could do."

But Elrond is Half-Elven. His paternal grandfather (Tuor) was human, as
was one of his maternal great-grandfathers (Berien). Most of the
half-elvens, having human blood, had the choice to return to Valinor and
remain immortal, or to stay in middle-earth and become mortal (albeit VERY
long-lived). It is because she had human blood, inherited through Elrond,
that Arwen had the choice to remain with Aragorn rather than sailing from
the Grey Havens to Valinor. All of this is laid out in Appendix A of
LoTR, and detailed in The Silmarillion.

[Jim Davis]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>>I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen
>>ROTK) that her exile was because she was one of the leaders,
>>indeed the only surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over
>>Morgoth's seizure of the Silmarils in the First Age.
>
> Except that everyone else with complicity in the revolt was
> eventually forgiven and allowed back into Valinor, she being an
> explicit exception for unexplained reasons.

Everyone else with complicity in the revolt was *killed* and
presumably residing in the Halls of Mandros(sp?). Galadriel was the
only surviver among the Noldorin leaders.

What is interesting is that the Valar held Galadriel more culpable
for the events of the First Age than they did Sauron. Apparently they
felt Morgoth's influence over Sauron was a mitigating factor that
Galadriel couldn't claim.

Jim Davis

[Rick DeNatale]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:14:28 +0000, Henry Spencer wrote:

> Except that everyone else with complicity in the revolt was eventually
> forgiven and allowed back into Valinor, she being an explicit exception
> for unexplained reasons.

I don't think that she couldn't have returned to Valinor. It's pretty
clear that she didn't want to. At the end of The Silmarillion, after a
description of how the Elves of Beleriand moved to the Lonely Isle and
were then readmitted by Manwe to Valinor we find:

"Yet not all of the Eldalie were willing to forsake the Jither Lands where
they had long suffered and long dwelt; and some lingered many an age in
Middle-Earth. Among those were Cirdan the Shipwright, and Celeborn of
Doriath, with Galadriel his wife, who alone remained of those who led the
Noldor to exile in Beleriand."

The phrase "led the Noldor to exile" implies to me that the exile was self
imposed. This is reinforced by a conversatin which takes place earlier in
the Silmarillion between Melian and Galadriel, when Melian is asking
Galadriel why she never speaks of the Valar:

"For what cause, Galadriel, were the high people of the Noldor driven
forth as exiles from Aman? Or what evil lies on the sons of Feanor that
they are so haughty and so fell? Do I not strike near the truth?"

"Near," said Galadriel; "save that we were ot driven forth, but came of
our own will, and against that of the Valar. And through great peril and
in despite of the Valar for this purpose we came: to take vengeance upon
Morgoth, and regain what he stole."

[Scott Lowther]

Rick DeNatale wrote:
>
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:04:26 +0000, Scott Lowther wrote:
>
> > Elrond being an elf... he'd probably say something to the effect of:
> > "Isildur went to throw the ring into the fire, and the silly human
> > slipped and fell. Not a thing I could do."
>
> But Elrond is Half-Elven.

Yeah, but what with that whole "choice" thing, it works otu to him being
fully elven, for all practical purposes.

Sorta like his mom was female, his dad was male, but he wasn't some
halfway mishmash between the two. Well, hopefully not...

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

[OM]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 17:59:37 -0500, Rick DeNatale >
wrote:

>All of this is laid out in Appendix A of LoTR, and detailed in The Silmarillion.

....Neither of which explain how the Hobbits got to Oz, and the Elves
got to pre-Surak Vulcan.

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

[Reed Snellenberger]

Rick DeNatale > wrote in
:

> All of this is laid out in Appendix A of LoTR, and detailed in The
> Silmarillion.
>

In other words, RTFM...

--
Reed

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Scott Lowther" > wrote in message
...
> Pat Flannery wrote:
> >
> > Scott Lowther wrote:
> >
> > >but you can tell that a good chunk of that
> > >annoyance is with *himself*, as he didn't drop-kick Isildur's piddly
ass
> > >right into the fire when he had the shot. "Hey, buddy!" POW! And the
> > >trouble's over.
> > >
> >
> > Except for that small matter of the War Of Men And Elves that would
> > follow in around an hour after that- provided that they didn't believe
> > Elrond's story that: "Isildur went funny in the head...
>
> Elrond being an elf... he'd probably say something to the effect of:
> "Isildur went to throw the ring into the fire, and the silly human
> slipped and fell. Not a thing I could do."
>
> Or more likely... "He fell." And leave it at that.

"On that day I saw the grace of men fail."

>
>
>
> --
> Scott Lowther, Engineer
> Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
> gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

[Ami Silberman]

"Henry Spencer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim Davis > wrote:
> >I thought it was made very clear (in his writings, haven't seen ROTK)
> >that her exile was because she was one of the leaders, indeed the
> >only surviving leader, of the Noldorin revolt over Morgoth's seizure
> >of the Silmarils in the First Age.
>
> Except that everyone else with complicity in the revolt was eventually
> forgiven and allowed back into Valinor, she being an explicit exception
> for unexplained reasons.
> --
Possibly due to the public dissemination of a very unflattering portrait of
her with her eyes glazed over. The original, uncropped painting shows her
surrounded by all five wizards while someone laboriously explains some
technical point to Morgoth.

[Christopher P. Winter]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:18:45 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> There's a comic, whose name I forget at the moment (Steven ----), who
>tells
>> a joke: I moved into a new apartment last week. I found a switch that
>> doesn't do anything. On Sunday, I kept flipping it while trying to guess
>> what it does. I got a call from a woman in West Germany telling me to stop
>> it.
>
>Steven Wright.
>
>He also has a map of the world. 1" = 1". Took his last summer vacation
>just to fold it.
>
>He also has a collection of seashells. He keeps it on beaches all over the
>world. Perhaps you've seen it?
>

I'm reading a book that quotes that one. (_Eric Meyer on CSS_, page 263.)

[Christopher P. Winter]

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 16:56:00 -0600, Pat Flannery > wrote
(in part):

>
>
>Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
>>Pat, it sounds like you have old, gummy three-way switches. It requires 4
>>wires, white (neutral), black (hot), red (swings either way) and bare
>>(ground).
>>
>>Old switches (especially with Bakelite) can get gummy and slow down the
>>internal workings, depending on how warm they get.
>>
>These didn't slow down, they would just try, sometimes dim the light
>momentarily, or make it illuminate momentarily... and go right back
>off...then give up...at least the house ones.
>The apartment ones are obviously wired in series. God knows how the
>house ones were wired.
>Would it be possible to wire them in such a way so that they were
>connected in two different ways at once? Sort of in series, and sort of
>the way they were supposed to be?* The effect was like the electricity
>couldn't make up its mind immediately as to what it wanted to do...you
>could flip the bottom switch up and down till you were blue in the face
>without any effect on the upstairs light's illumination status. Could
>they have been wired in series in such a way that they were normally in
>the "on" position, and to turn the light off required _both_ to be
>turned to the "off" position? That- plus your sticky switch hypothesis-
>would seem to come close to explaining the observed behavior.
>

My guess is that they were wired in series, one was gummed up as Scott
describes, with a sort of delayed action, and one was defective so that it
either had a "sneak path" that allowed current to flow past it, or else when
it was thrown the handle moved but the contacts did not separate.

Sheer speculation, of course.