Beagle ... alas

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.

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.

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."

"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.

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_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

"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.

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

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.

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

Lunar Prospector.


Thank you.

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.