Do we have enough rockets and launch pads yet?

On Feb 26, 1:55*pm, kT wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:49 pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:18 pm, kT wrote:

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

I have no idea, I don't use FORTH much anymore myself, I just use it
as a model on how real software should work, and how to make real
software work right. My primary training is in applied mathematics,
engineering and physics. Chemistry and condensed matter physics is
just a necessary sideline for me. Rocket science is multi-
disciplinary.

FORTH is still around in a big way, though, Elizabeth Rather has
already incorporated all of the higher order aspects of object
oriented programming in her commercial version of her Windows Forth. I
think it's called SwiftForth. Right now I'm into C++ because that is
the software that Martin Schweiger's Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is
written in.

Ya, I can sure understand that. C was a big improvement over the SAP
and FAP of my day. On a General Automation mini I had to go straight
object code for speed (on the control system, interrupt processors,
and test stand I/O). We had floating point software from an outfit in
Beaverton that was straight object code,

JTM

On Feb 26, 6:45 am, kT wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:
You can never have enough launch pads.

The more the merrier I say.

And all those idle and abandoned air force pads out at Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station aren't enough launch pads for you? I count dozens.

Site two is a perversion. Whoever thought that up should be fired.

Site one, however, makes sense to me, except that they won't need it
once they cancel the VSE, ESAS and Constellation. 39A and B suffice.

Most folks of this extensively anti-think-tank of their Usenet from
naysay and otherwise status quo hell on Earth want absolutely
everything possible and then some, as long as it's being entirely
accomplished and sustained along by way of our hard earned loot, and
not by any of theirs, or much less within their backyard if such makes
any noise, pollution or blocks a given view. Of course, publicly
purchasing their "backyard" for ten fold its worth is acceptable.
.. - Brad Guth

wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:55 pm, kT wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:49 pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:18 pm, kT wrote:
I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.
That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?
I have no idea, I don't use FORTH much anymore myself, I just use it
as a model on how real software should work, and how to make real
software work right. My primary training is in applied mathematics,
engineering and physics. Chemistry and condensed matter physics is
just a necessary sideline for me. Rocket science is multi-
disciplinary.

FORTH is still around in a big way, though, Elizabeth Rather has
already incorporated all of the higher order aspects of object
oriented programming in her commercial version of her Windows Forth. I
think it's called SwiftForth. Right now I'm into C++ because that is
the software that Martin Schweiger's Orbiter Space Flight Simulator is
written in.

Ya, I can sure understand that. C was a big improvement over the SAP
and FAP of my day. On a General Automation mini I had to go straight
object code for speed (on the control system, interrupt processors,
and test stand I/O). We had floating point software from an outfit in
Beaverton that was straight object code,

I still hand assemble straight object code all the time too, FORTH just
makes it a lot easier to do so. FORTH is still in widespread use on the
test bench as well, it's just fallen out of use for large applications.

It seems the official MIB spooks and moles of Usenet get to do and/or
threaten as much as they like, and without regard or remorse for
whatever the consequences. It's typically a very faith-based kind of
mindset that's based upon evidence exclusion and their all or nothing
mindset unless you want to get yourself put on a stick.

Without our very own Semitic Third Reich cache of those smart fly-by-
rocket and physics wizards, our bloated NASA is pretty much out of the
picture of accomplishing whatever's technically doable. That's why
China's CATS is so essential, that is unless India manages to do one
better.

Instead of honestly knocking the socks of others off with our superior
expertise and better science, we allow political false imprisonment
tactics to coexist as cloaked as democracy, not to mention
orchestrating and thus condoning torture, then lying our pretend-
atheist butts of denial off about most of it. From where I sit, it
looks as though Hitler has quite a smile on his puss.
.. - Brad Guth


On Feb 26, 8:39 am, kT wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
OM wrote:.

...He won't stop. Jim's convinced he's the be-all and end-all, and is
too full of himself to stop fighting with the known trolls.

Everybody is welcome on the usenet, Mosley, even violent ****s like you.

However, that doesn't give you the right to libel, slander and threaten.

It'll come back to haunt you, you can't make it go away, it's archived.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.s...adc64f2c8ee34e

You probably haven't read the exciting new COTS proposal yet:
http://webpages.charter.net/tsiolkov...oposal/IPO.doc
It all seems so easy when Tom E. Terrific describes it.

Read it and weep.

If NASA can't build a rocket with an existing SSME, but Elon Musk can
build a rocket with a brand new engine developed in house, what does
that tell you about NASA? Now NASA can't even build a rocket - period.

They can't even resurrect a 30 year old engine from the Apollo era.

An SSME powered SSTO is a trivial exercise in rocket technology today.

This is 2008, if you haven't noticed, we've been flying the shuttle for
almost 30 years now. When are you idiots going to join the modern world?

All I see here is all hail 'Henry Spencer', a fascist Rand Simberg, a
violent and degenerate Robert Mosley III, and a hick from North Dakota.

Good riddance. China and India are going to pass you by in space
technology like the history that your proud and vain nation is.

Unless you get your **** together really fast, America is history.

You just haven't figured it out yet, being the dumb hicks that you are.

I have given you a roadmap to the future, you can follow it, or not.

You've wasted your future because you are a nation founded on violence.

Revolutionary war, Indian wars, slavery, women's suffrage, Civil war,
Vietnam war, and now the Iraq war, genocide, secret prisons, state
sanctioned torture, domestic surveillance, you get what you pay for :

http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that
link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of
power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in
some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of
similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins,
the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime
itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious.
Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common
themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a
suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves
viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the
objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the
population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by
marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was
egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most
significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the people's attention from other
problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled directions. The methods of choice--relentless propaganda and
disinformation--were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite
"spontaneous" acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists,
socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional
national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals,
and "terrorists." Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably
labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always
identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure
that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was
allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The
military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever
possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and
increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and
the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably
viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion
and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian
laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the
country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media
were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray
from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure
media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to
resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied
threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible
with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the
general public unaware of the regimes' excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually
an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any
constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting
"national security," and questioning its activities was portrayed as
unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes,
the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by
their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the
predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as
militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite's
behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was
generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the
ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the
"godless." A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite
was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of "have-not" citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was
seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony
of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed
or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion
or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin
to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals
and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them
were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were
considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal.
Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty
harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were
strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and
literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked
power, leading to rampant abuse. "Normal" and political crime were often
merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against
political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or
"traitors" was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more
police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close
to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This
corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial
gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the
benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a
position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example,
by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus
under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely
unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public
opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates
were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the
desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the
election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters,
destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to
a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a
free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly
being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are
just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

On Feb 26, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 25, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:



I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

JTM

I learned FORTH back in the mid-80s on a DEC PDP-11. I wrote a screen
(many words).

What the hack (no pun, just a mispell I left) is GOAL?

On Feb 28, 1:12*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 26, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

JTM

I learned FORTH back in the mid-80s on a DEC PDP-11. I wrote a screen
(many words).

What the hack (no pun, just a mispell I left) is GOAL?

It's a bit slow to load, but scroll about halfway down for GOAL:

http://tinyurl.com/2ppq5r

JTM

On Feb 28, 2:39*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 28, 1:12*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Feb 26, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

JTM

I learned FORTH back in the mid-80s on a DEC PDP-11. I wrote a screen
(many words).

What the hack (no pun, just a mispell I left) is GOAL?

It's a bit slow to load, but scroll about halfway down for GOAL:

http://tinyurl.com/2ppq5r


Thanks, I'll check it out.

I recall a NASA language for Expert Systems called Clips from JSC or
JPL. Not sure what ever became of it, and expert systems for that
matter...

On Feb 28, 2:04*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:39*pm, "
wrote:





On Feb 28, 1:12*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Feb 26, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software.

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

JTM

I learned FORTH back in the mid-80s on a DEC PDP-11. I wrote a screen
(many words).

What the hack (no pun, just a mispell I left) is GOAL?

It's a bit slow to load, but scroll about halfway down for GOAL:

http://tinyurl.com/2ppq5r

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I recall a NASA language for Expert Systems called Clips from JSC or
JPL. Not sure what ever became of it, and expert systems for that
matter...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Were those the expert systems that were more or less synonymous with
artificial intelligence? I vaguely recall evaluating a couple of those
for NASA, now that you mention it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if
they never got off the ground. Their methods of establishing data
bases were ill-defined, to say the least. Maybe 'too hopeful' better
describes that aspect of them.

JTM

On Feb 28, 5:05*pm, "
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2:04*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:





On Feb 28, 2:39*pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 28, 1:12*pm, Eric Chomko wrote:

On Feb 26, 2:49*pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 25, 5:18*pm, kT wrote:

I'm a FORTH programmer, I can certainly run herd on any software..

That's the first time I've heard mention of FORTH since the early
eighties, when i had responsibilty at KSC for a team of FORTH
programmers from Huntsville. Do you know if any engineers at KSC are
still using GOAL (Ground Oriented Aerospace Language)?

JTM

I learned FORTH back in the mid-80s on a DEC PDP-11. I wrote a screen
(many words).

What the hack (no pun, just a mispell I left) is GOAL?

It's a bit slow to load, but scroll about halfway down for GOAL:

http://tinyurl.com/2ppq5r

Thanks, I'll check it out.

I recall a NASA language for Expert Systems called Clips from JSC or
JPL. Not sure what ever became of it, and expert systems for that
matter...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Were those the expert systems that were more or less synonymous with
artificial intelligence?

A lot of expert system people liked to think so, but an expert system
appears more like "programmed learning" guides of the 60s and 70s
rather than something that could pass for AI.

To date, only chess algorithms can pass for anything AI-like based
upon the original goals of what AI was supposed to provide.

vaguely recall evaluating a couple of those
for NASA, now that you mention it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if
they never got off the ground.

No, CLIPS was for real. It was used at GSFC for awhile on the Spacelab
project.

Their methods of establishing data
bases were ill-defined, to say the least. Maybe 'too hopeful' better
describes that aspect of them.


Well since AI was a big deal in the 80s and 90s, it has sort of fallen
by the wayside in favor of robitics at the moment. I mean unless you
can get your AI project to actually "do" something, then what good is
it?