|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#241
March 12th 05, 04:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Jeff Findley ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message : ... : Jeff Findley ) wrote: : : It's arguable that today's servers bear little resemblance to : yesterday's : : inflexible mainframes, but I'll concede the point. : : You'll concede the point because you're wrong! Today's servers resemble : yesterday's mainframes and today's PCs resemble yesterday's terminals : (connected to those mainframes), better than any other similar analogy in : IT one can come up with! The fact that a PC can do much alone is simply an : added bonus, etc. A better telecommuting analogy cannot possibly be made. : Yesterday's mainframes are similar to today's servers, but yesterday's : terminals are not similar to today's PC. There is a very good reason that : we called them DUMB terminals. They could do absolutely nothing without : being connected to a mainframe. The only memory they had was screen memory. A PC without the Internet is dumb. You miss that. Sure we can do a lot more with a PC than we can with a dumb terminal, but the analogy still holds (i.e. client/server). : Anything you typed was sent to the mainframe and anything that was displayed : came from the mainframe. When you turned off the power on your dumb : terminal, you didn't loose any data, as it was all on the mainframe. : Personal computers today are "real" computers. You can use them to do : meaningful work without being connected to a server. But you cannot have the Internet without getting on-line. Sure PCs are superior to dumb terminals, but you still need to log-on like you did with mainframes and terminals. : : Scaled Composites and the other startups have as their leaders the : : industry's equivalents of the likes of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. These : : companies (and the people who lead them) have the potential to : revolutionize : : the industry. : : I hope so. Do you know when the next launch is? : Ask Virgin Galactic. They're the ones who will be selling the launches on : vehicles they buy from Scaled Composites. : : Well whoever it is they stand to make a bundle. And whining about : NASA, : : L-Mart, Boeing, etc. ain't going to do squat! Like the message in the : : movie "Field of Dreams", 'build it and they will come', makes a helova : lot : : of sense WRT to CATS. : : : Ignoring the issue is a recipe for failure. There have been many, many : : launch vehicle startups over the decades that have failed. It may : interest : : you to find out why they failed and how those failures relate to the : anove : : mentioned organizations. : : Do you have a reference? : The public library. Grab yourself a copy of the Readers' Guide to : Periodical Literature and start looking. If you lived close by, I'd let : you rummage through my stacks of aerospace periodicals which fill several : filing cabinents. : : The "only game in town" is too expensive to truly open up space to : anyone : : but government sponsored astronauts. If that's the kind of future you : want, : : then your point is valid. If you'd like to see civilians in LEO, then : NASA : : vehicles won't get you there. : : I do want commercial spaceflight. We should have it. I was disapointed : that Mir wasn't saved by some private enterprise. I'd like ISS to get : turned over to the public some day in a manner that the Internet was : turned over. : : CATS. : : I think everyone does. But how do you do it? And cheap access to space : with no payload will get you exactly what? : : Can you achieve CATS with a shuttle size payload? Half? Quarter? : Let the market decide. Force NASA out of the launch vehicle business (don't : let it create a shuttle derived vehicle). Force NASA out of the manned : spacecraft business (let it buy rides on vehicles owned and operated solely : by private companies). End the socialistic monopoly that NASA has on manned : spaceflight. The we'd have to wait. No, when the lauch market comes up with CATS then shift gears. Otherwise it's business as usual. : : Unfortunately, it's hard to convince investors of this "fact" when : investors : : are told that this goes against conventional wisdom. It's even harder : when : : they hear this from the "experts" at spaceflight at NASA, who believe : the : : only way to get people into space is with the (expensive) infrastructure : at : : KSC. : : ...based upon results, how can you really argue? SS1 needs a orbial : followon to really get anyone's attention. : In your opinion. I think a profitable suborbital tourism business would do : the same thing. I think Virgin Galactic has a shot at doing just that. We'll see... : : And at the time, the "usual suspects" in the computer industry would say : : that "that isn't a real computer" because it could never do as much as a : : mainframe computer. This is *exactly* like SS1 is today. The "usual : : suspects" in the aerospace industry think SS1 is a toy and say it's "not : a : : real spaceship", because it can't get into orbit. : : Well the usual suspects inluded IBM and DEC. IBM made the PC and made a : bundle for awhile was was previously noted. DEC fell by the wayside. : : But to continue with your analogy thus far WRT PC market and commercial : space, we are at around 1970 with the 4004 microprocessor and haven't even : created a kit computer as was done in 1975. : I'd say the prototype "personal spaceship" has already flown (SS1), and now : we're waiting for the production model. Certainly these "personal : spaceships" won't be orbital at first, but the first Z80 based PC's didn't : do the job of a mainframe either. The Z80 based PC's were looked down upon : by people who used mainframes as toys, but they were found in small : businesses doing real work. Suborbital spaceships will do much the same. You speak about Z-80s, we're at the 4004/8008 version of commercial spaceflight. Check out those two microprocessors to get an idea. : And there exists security issues of getting a launch vehicle in the wrong : hands where a PC, though a potential weapon, can't harm in the same manner : a rocket can. : The US classifies fast PC's as "supercomputers" and does not allow their : export because they are seen as a potential security threat. Phooey! Anybody can get a fast PC with enough $$$. Eric : Jeff : -- : Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address. 
|
|
#242
March 12th 05, 05:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:59:00 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff : Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor : glow in such a way as to indicate that: : Well NASA didn't stop Paul Allen and SS1 now did they? O'Keefe even : congradulated them and the Air & Space Museum is where SS1 is going to end : up. : : Look at what NASA is doing with the CEV. They're setting requirements for : the CEV and will ultimately maintain control of the project from cradle to : grave. The chances that another organization would be allowed to buy their : own copy of the CEV is virtually nil. : I doubt if that will be the case. Anyone who wants to can buy a space : station module from Boeing, and I'm sure that Boeing will be able to : sell CEVs to anyone who wants one, at least domestically. The real : issue is--who would want one? Therein is the rub, one customer makes that one customer dictate the design. Perhaps if CEV had additional govt. customers as well as a commercial application or two, things would be different? Eric
|
|
#243
March 12th 05, 09:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#244
March 12th 05, 02:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ... Jeff Findley ) wrote: : Yesterday's mainframes are similar to today's servers, but yesterday's : terminals are not similar to today's PC. There is a very good reason that : we called them DUMB terminals. They could do absolutely nothing without : being connected to a mainframe. The only memory they had was screen memory. A PC without the Internet is dumb. You miss that. Sure we can do a lot more with a PC than we can with a dumb terminal, but the analogy still holds (i.e. client/server). This is absolute b.s. The new laptop I bought my wife has Microsoft Office 2003 Professional edition installed on it (which made the cost of the latop jump 50% in and of itself). She's doing lots of work on that machine, despite the fact that it's never been connected to the Internet or to *any* computer network. To print, you simply attach the printer directly to the laptop. To share files, you burn them on a CD-R or CD-RW using the laptop's drive and use the "sneakernet" for file transfers. : Personal computers today are "real" computers. You can use them to do : meaningful work without being connected to a server. But you cannot have the Internet without getting on-line. Sure PCs are superior to dumb terminals, but you still need to log-on like you did with mainframes and terminals. Not everyone needs the Internet to do "real work" on their PC. Just because web browsers, email, and instant messaging are considered the latest "killer apps" doesn't mean that everyone needs to run those apps to get their job done. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
|
#245
March 13th 05, 09:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Rand Simberg wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:17:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J. McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote: :On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:33:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J. :McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in :such a way as to indicate that: : :::Of course there is, but we're talking about developing systems that it :::is claimed are easy to do and will have a huge market (which is a big :::piece of the rest of the business plan). ::: :::But up until now, the "huge market" part generated a great deal of :::skepticism. That's what's kept it from happening, not the :::technological side. :: ::That doesn't seem to track, either. One need merely look at the ::number of current launches. Being able to come up with a reliable and ::inexpensive launcher would quite obviously allow you to capture a lot ::of those existing launches, even if lower launch costs didn't enlarge ::the market. :: ::That doesn't constitute enough business to amortize the development ::costs. You need a much bigger market than that. The claim is that ::it's easy to do, not that it's inexpensive to do. It still takes a ::lot of up-front investment. : :If it takes that much up front investment in "development costs", then :it is *NOT* "easy". : :What's not "easy" is raising the money, not designing and developing :the launch system. The latter isn't a big deal, given the appropriate :investment. If it's "not a big deal" then why does it cost so much, Rand? Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. Even developing an airliner takes billions. That doesn't mean that it's technically difficult. There's very little technical risk to the 7E7. We appear to be using different definitions for 'easy'. Yours seems to be "I don't need to invent any totally new technologies or engage in magic". Mine is "I can put it together out of off-the-shelf parts". We will use off-the-shelf parts wherever feasible, but there is still a great deal of cusom design work in a project of that magnitude. What will be off-the-shelf is the required technologies. We do so appear. I am using it in the first sense, because many people seem to mistakenly think that we must "invent totally new technologies or engage in magic" to develop cheap launch. We don't. We just have to make the investment.
|
|
#246
March 13th 05, 10:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Richard Morris wrote:
:Rand Simberg wrote: : : On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:17:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J. : McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : such a way as to indicate that: : : (Rand Simberg) wrote: : : :On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:33:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J. : :McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in : :such a way as to indicate that: : : : :::Of course there is, but we're talking about developing systems that it : :::is claimed are easy to do and will have a huge market (which is a big : :::piece of the rest of the business plan). : ::: : :::But up until now, the "huge market" part generated a great deal of : :::skepticism. That's what's kept it from happening, not the : :::technological side. : :: : ::That doesn't seem to track, either. One need merely look at the : ::number of current launches. Being able to come up with a reliable and : ::inexpensive launcher would quite obviously allow you to capture a lot : ::of those existing launches, even if lower launch costs didn't enlarge : ::the market. : :: : ::That doesn't constitute enough business to amortize the development : ::costs. You need a much bigger market than that. The claim is that : ::it's easy to do, not that it's inexpensive to do. It still takes a : ::lot of up-front investment. : : : :If it takes that much up front investment in "development costs", then : :it is *NOT* "easy". : : : :What's not "easy" is raising the money, not designing and developing : :the launch system. The latter isn't a big deal, given the appropriate : :investment. : : If it's "not a big deal" then why does it cost so much, Rand? : : Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. Even developing an : airliner takes billions. That doesn't mean that it's technically : difficult. There's very little technical risk to the 7E7. : : We appear to be using different definitions for 'easy'. Yours seems : to be "I don't need to invent any totally new technologies or engage : in magic". Mine is "I can put it together out of off-the-shelf : parts". : :We will use off-the-shelf parts wherever feasible, but there is still a great :deal of cusom design work in a project of that magnitude. What will be  ff-the-shelf is the required technologies.In other words, it ain't 'easy'. Did you have anything new to add at this late date? -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn
|
|
#247
March 14th 05, 12:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 13:49:41 -0800, Richard Morris
wrote: Rand Simberg wrote: On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:17:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J. McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: (Rand Simberg) wrote: :On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:33:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J. :McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in :such a way as to indicate that: : :::Of course there is, but we're talking about developing systems that it :::is claimed are easy to do and will have a huge market (which is a big :::piece of the rest of the business plan). ::: :::But up until now, the "huge market" part generated a great deal of :::skepticism. That's what's kept it from happening, not the :::technological side. :: ::That doesn't seem to track, either. One need merely look at the ::number of current launches. Being able to come up with a reliable and ::inexpensive launcher would quite obviously allow you to capture a lot ::of those existing launches, even if lower launch costs didn't enlarge ::the market. :: ::That doesn't constitute enough business to amortize the development ::costs. You need a much bigger market than that. The claim is that ::it's easy to do, not that it's inexpensive to do. It still takes a ::lot of up-front investment. : :If it takes that much up front investment in "development costs", then :it is *NOT* "easy". : :What's not "easy" is raising the money, not designing and developing :the launch system. The latter isn't a big deal, given the appropriate :investment. If it's "not a big deal" then why does it cost so much, Rand? Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. Even developing an airliner takes billions. That doesn't mean that it's technically difficult. There's very little technical risk to the 7E7. We appear to be using different definitions for 'easy'. Yours seems to be "I don't need to invent any totally new technologies or engage in magic". Mine is "I can put it together out of off-the-shelf parts". We will use off-the-shelf parts wherever feasible, but there is still a great deal of cusom design work in a project of that magnitude. What will be off-the-shelf is the required technologies. Even COTS components are very expensive, guidance systems, telemetry processors, power control systems, batteries, telemetry transmitters. Are you also prepared to write all the specs to give to the companies that build all the "off-the-shelf required technology"? Those specs are required to insure you get the items you really need. Also where are you going to do your testing? Or for that matter where are you going to build your launch tower, control center, range safety center? Where are you going to get your weather info before launch? Are you going to launch your own sounding rockets for that weather info? Or do you plan on relying on the internet to give you real time high alt wind data? You are seriously underestimating what is really involved with a rocket launch, or developing a new one. But when you are ready, I'll be glad to spend your money as a consultant, because you sure are going to need one. -JATO http://jatobservatory.org
|
|
#248
March 14th 05, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
|
#249
March 14th 05, 06:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Jeff Findley ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message : ... : Jeff Findley ) wrote: : : Yesterday's mainframes are similar to today's servers, but yesterday's : : terminals are not similar to today's PC. There is a very good reason : that : : we called them DUMB terminals. They could do absolutely nothing without : : being connected to a mainframe. The only memory they had was screen : memory. : : A PC without the Internet is dumb. You miss that. Sure we can do a lot : more with a PC than we can with a dumb terminal, but the analogy still : holds (i.e. client/server). : This is absolute b.s. Are you going to tell me that a terminal isn't the client and a mainframe hook-up with phone and modem is the server in a client/server model?!? : The new laptop I bought my wife has Microsoft Office : 2003 Professional edition installed on it (which made the cost of the latop : jump 50% in and of itself). She's doing lots of work on that machine, : despite the fact that it's never been connected to the Internet or to *any* : computer network. Which nowadays is the exception rather than the rule. Heck terminals had both 'remote' and 'local' modes. Granted a dumb terminal pales in comparison to PC, but the Internet is much more than a PC as well. : To print, you simply attach the printer directly to the laptop. To share : files, you burn them on a CD-R or CD-RW using the laptop's drive and use the : "sneakernet" for file transfers. I know how all that works. But from a networking point-of-view a dumb terminal does more, simply because it is hooked up. These are relative terms. You can't compare computing power of the 2000s with that of the 1970s per se. But, you can make a client/server analogy and THAT is the point, not computing power. : : Personal computers today are "real" computers. You can use them to do : : meaningful work without being connected to a server. : : But you cannot have the Internet without getting on-line. Sure PCs are : superior to dumb terminals, but you still need to log-on like you did with : mainframes and terminals. : Not everyone needs the Internet to do "real work" on their PC. Just because : web browsers, email, and instant messaging are considered the latest : "killer apps" doesn't mean that everyone needs to run those apps to get : their job done. I never said that a computer was uesless without the internet. All I was saying is that from a networking point-of-view a PC of today is like a terminal from 30 years ago, and, and the Internet is like a mainframe of way back then. Eric : Jeff : -- : Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
|
#250
March 14th 05, 06:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message ... Anthony Frost ) wrote: : In message : (Eric Chomko) wrote: : Anthony Frost ) wrote: : : : If USA owned the shuttles rather than just operating them do you think : : they should be barred from selling spare seats? : : The USA? Who is that? We do own the shuttle. The country not some corp. : I'd been wondering if there was any point. If you are going to try : arguing a point, at least have some clue of what you're wittering about. : Go look up United Space Alliance. I figured it was something esoteric. Okay, if the USA owned the shuttle, then what? Grounded indefinitely? Esoteric? This isn't "something esoteric". For someone who's been spouting that you'd like to see DOD develop the next generation "space plane", you ought to know more about the existing shuttle program and how it operates. Jeff -- Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| NYT: Death Sentence for the Hubble? | Pat Flannery | History | 39 | February 20th 05 05:59 PM |
| Death Sentence for the Hubble? | Neil Gerace | History | 17 | February 15th 05 02:06 PM |
| Congressional Resolutions on Hubble Space Telescope | EFLASPO | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | April 1st 04 03:26 PM |
| UFO Activities from Biblical Times (Long Text) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | UK Astronomy | 3 | December 25th 03 10:41 PM |
| UFO Activities from Biblical Times (LONG TEXT) | Kazmer Ujvarosy | SETI | 2 | December 25th 03 07:33 PM |
Linear Mode
