Data from Columbia 2/1/03 massacre survived... Sounds like anothergovmint covup to me!

On May 10, 1:37*pm, ayatollah obama
wrote:
On May 10, 1:30*am, "Alan Erskine" wrote:

"eyeball" wrote in message

...

discovered the truth:

http://www.ilovebonnie.net/tinfoil-hat.jpg

LOL! *I never thought I'd see a picture of someone actually wearing a
tinfoil had!

Now there's an obamarama supporter if I've ever seen one! Is he the
new director for Nasa in January?????
-------
DemonCraps.... Making the lives of poor people even more miserable!
DemonCraps.... Save a planet, Starve a Nation

Democraps? Who got us into the nation building in the Middle East? Who
started a dumb war based upon false intel?

You Repugs had your chance and blew it.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It is also probably worth pointing out that there are other "computers"
on the shuttle that are more powerful than the GPCs. The MEDS IDPs are
Intel 386-based, and the MEDS MDUs have RISC processors, for example.

It's also worth pointing out that many people a) overestimate the
amount of computing power required because they make the
apples-to-oranges comparison with their PC's and, b) don't understand
just how different in design, hardware, and software, dedicated
control systems are from those general purpose PC's.

Of course. You don't need a fancy user interface on a dedicated control
system, for example. (I was hoping someone would notice that the most
powerful CPUs built into the shuttle - the RISC CPUs, MIPS R3000 I
believe - are the ones that run the user interface on the MEDS MDUs. And
the least powerful CPUs - the AP-101S GPCs - are the ones that do the
real number crunching.)

It's not just the lack of a fancy UI though. It's also the hardware
is optimized to some degree, and the OS and applications are much more
tightly integrated. Not having to deal with 1x10^10 different
possible combinations of sound and video hardware as well as
supporting a dozen different types of I/O ports and interfaces helps
as well.

Special purpose controllers and computers are simply different beasts
from the destop PC, and even mainframes, in ways almost too numerous
to describe and not well understood without knowing a heck of a lot
more about computers than most people.

The Apollo Guidance Computer had a 15-bit word size, and had 36K words
of fixed memory, 2K words of erasable memory. That's (almost) all they
needed to go to the moon and back. (I say almost because Apollo had no
onboard targeting capability for TLI, translunar midcourse, LOI, and TEI
burns. And of course the Saturn IU had its own digital computer to
handle launch-to-orbit and TLI.)

The LM Abort Guidance System was even more impressive, with an 18-bit
word size, 2K words of fixed memory and 2K words of erasable memory.
That's all you need to abort from powered descent, perform powered
ascent to guided cutoff conditions, and perform rendezvous with the CSM,
all in less memory than a typical Atari 2600 game cartridge.

Yup. I wish I could find where the manuals I have to the systems I
worked on in the Navy went off to. (My filing system is...
disorganized at best, and my library has never fully recovered from
being moved.) The numbers were similiarly unimpressive by modern
standards.

It's pretty amazing what you can do when you stick to simple user
interfaces, program in assembly language, and make every word count.

As I point out above, other factors come into play as well.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...

The LM Abort Guidance System was even more impressive, with an 18-bit word
size, 2K words of fixed memory and 2K words of erasable memory. That's all
you need to abort from powered descent, perform powered ascent to guided
cutoff conditions, and perform rendezvous with the CSM, all in less memory
than a typical Atari 2600 game cartridge.

Actually I believe the Atari 2600 was limited to about 4K, so about the
same.

But at least on the Atari 2600 you could defend your spaceship from
Asteroids, something the LM computer was never capableof doing. ;-)



It's pretty amazing what you can do when you stick to simple user
interfaces, program in assembly language, and make every word count.



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
The LM Abort Guidance System was even more impressive, with an 18-bit word
size, 2K words of fixed memory and 2K words of erasable memory. That's all
you need to abort from powered descent, perform powered ascent to guided
cutoff conditions, and perform rendezvous with the CSM, all in less memory
than a typical Atari 2600 game cartridge.

Actually I believe the Atari 2600 was limited to about 4K, so about the
same.

That was the original design limitation. The first bank-switched 8K
cartridges came out in 1981...

But at least on the Atari 2600 you could defend your spaceship from
Asteroids, something the LM computer was never capableof doing. ;-)

....and Asteroids was one of the first bank-switched cartridges.

On May 9, 9:36*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/...recovered_data

On the Net:

NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:

http://tinyurl.com/44nqgv

the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
as the OS for the space shuttle,

DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle. The space shuttle carried
experiments from many different agencies and some of them used DOS. That
does not mean that DOS was the OS for the space shuttle.

the article stated that DOS was used stupid. did you even take time
to read the article, you lazy ****?

On May 10, 12:32*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
James Of Tucson wrote:

At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
one that was designed for the space program.
That one ran OS-9. *It was actually the second generation GPC, in
84.

No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They started
out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991. The S has
more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while the B had
separate CPUs and IOPs.

The AP-101 family never used Motorola microprocessors. The AP-101 is
binary-compatible with the IBM System/360 series.

The OS on the shuttle AP-101 GPCs has never been OS-9. The PASS GPCs run
a custom OS called FCOS. I don't remember what the OS is called on the
BFS GPC but it wasn't OS-9.

See Jenkins, 3rd ed, pp 406-407 for discussion.

didn't notice it from your 1st post, Jorge, but saw it when James Of
Tucson responded to you.

yeah, you have 'ibm' in your email addy. we all know how you IBMers
fly by the seat of your pants, so i am sure you DIDN'T read the link i
posted when i started the thread. and, everyone knows how IBM does
not mind being involved in coverups, particularly when it involves ANY
government.

and, don't ANYONE forget, that IBM did business with the evil,
murderous Germains in world war II. 'nuff said!

On May 10, 4:16*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:32:03 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

James Of Tucson wrote:
At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
one that was designed for the space program.
That one ran OS-9. *It was actually the second generation GPC, in
84.
No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They started
out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991. The S has
more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while the B had
separate CPUs and IOPs.

IIRC, 68000s did turn up in the updated Main Engine Controllers circa
1990. I had an Amiga at the time and was impressed that some part of
the Shuttle was also now using the 68000.

Hmm, right you are. Jenkins says the Block II MECs were certified in
1991 (p. 416) but does not mention that it used a 68000. That bit of
info is in /Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience/, however.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

oh, so you PURPORT that you can read...but just refuse to...

nice going fella.

On May 10, 4:36*pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:32:03 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

James Of Tucson wrote:
At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
one that was designed for the space program.
That one ran OS-9. *It was actually the second generation GPC, in
84.
No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They
started out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991.
The S has more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while
the B had separate CPUs and IOPs.

IIRC, 68000s did turn up in the updated Main Engine Controllers circa
1990. I had an Amiga at the time and was impressed that some part of
the Shuttle was also now using the 68000.

Hmm, right you are. Jenkins says the Block II MECs were certified in
1991 (p. 416) but does not mention that it used a 68000. That bit of
info is in /Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience/, however.

It is also probably worth pointing out that there are other "computers"
on the shuttle that are more powerful than the GPCs. The MEDS IDPs are
Intel 386-based, and the MEDS MDUs have RISC processors, for example.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

RISC processors are called that for a reason. they are ****, and are
very risky. yet another 'tribute' to the evil, vacuous IBM

On May 14, 12:49*pm, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

It is also probably worth pointing out that there are other "computers"
on the shuttle that are more powerful than the GPCs. The MEDS IDPs are
Intel 386-based, and the MEDS MDUs have RISC processors, for example.

It's also worth pointing out that many people a) overestimate the
amount of computing power required because they make the
apples-to-oranges comparison with their PC's and, b) don't understand
just how different in design, hardware, and software, dedicated
control systems are from those general purpose PC's.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

oh, Derek? as if you are 'the ****'. you don't know **** fella

On May 10, 12:41*pm, (Al Dykes) wrote:
In article ,
James Of Tucson wrote:





On May 9, 6:36 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle.

When MS-DOS was on the table, the choice was made to use 68000 chips
and the OS-9 operating system instead.
But the avionics systems were never based on consumer hardware or
software at all.

The avionics are distributed among hundreds (about 300) separate
specialized control units. *These were designed from the ground up
specifically for the Shuttle. * These control units are interfaced to
"General Purpose Computers".

At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
one that was designed for the space program.
That one ran OS-9. *It was actually the second generation GPC, in

As someone else posted in more detail, the main computers were
off-the-shelf IBM hardware. See

*http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ex...e_shuttle.html

--
Al Dykes
*News is something someone wants to suppress, everything else is advertising.
* * - Lord Northcliffe, publisher of the Daily Mail- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

yeah, and IBM computers = **** computers. no more need be said!