#21
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
"Joann Evans" wrote in message
... Lou Scheffer wrote: (Lou Scheffer) wrote in message om... (Derek Lyons) wrote in message ... h (Rand Simberg) wrote: Oops - this was NOT one of the first uses of transistors. Another article states that they were still built with vacuum tubes in 1964, 10 years after transistors were used for other applications, since transistors were not yet proven to be more reliable. In retrospect this makes perfect sense - any reliability conscious field will not rush to adapt new technology, no matter how promising, if the old technology is working at least OK. Lou Scheffer When a shuttle crew did a satellite upgrade (not sure if it was Solar Max, or Hubble), it was noted that the replacement units were 386 processor based. Some people didn't understand why...you basically just answered them. (Espically when you add in uncertainty as to how well a new processor design will tolerate long term ionizing radiation exposure) It was the Hubble space telescope. I liked the power supply swap in last service mission. Higher risk - but high rewards. gb |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
"Rand Simberg" wrote ...
My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of satellites: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html "But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in the loss of over two hundred million dollars." Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a few cheap parts caused its loss. "Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain. It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting. Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction (Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:28:30 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
"Paul Blay" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Rand Simberg" wrote ... My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of satellites: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html "But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in the loss of over two hundred million dollars." Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a few cheap parts caused its loss. The latter is obvious. The question was why the loss was so large, not what caused it. "Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain. It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting. It's not news to you, perhaps. To many readers of Fox News, it may be. Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction (Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)... I never claim, or even imply, that "NASA is evil." -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:37:12 -0800 (PST),
h (Rand Simberg) wrote: I never claim, or even imply, that "NASA is evil." No, but somehow it drips from your columns such as to cause a flood. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:44:40 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
John Penta made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:37:12 -0800 (PST), (Rand Simberg) wrote: I never claim, or even imply, that "NASA is evil." No, but somehow it drips from your columns such as to cause a flood. Just because you mistakenly choose to infer something doesn't mean that I imply it. -- simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole) interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org "Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..." Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me. Here's my email address for autospammers: |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Paul Blay" writes: "Rand Simberg" wrote ... My latest Fox column is up, in which I ruminate on the high cost of satellites: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97611,00.html "But I'm actually more interested in discussing why it's possible for the absence of a few parts worth, at most, a few dollars each to result in the loss of over two hundred million dollars." Of course that isn't what you discuss after that point. What you discuss is why the "two hundred million dollars" bit not why the absense of a few cheap parts caused its loss. "Space could be cheap, and here's how" is an old, tired, refrain. It may be true but it's not news and it's not particularly interesting. Maybe if you had less "NASA is evil" and more on the ventures that are actually heading in what you appear to think is the right direction (Falcon LV, D.M.C. etc.)... Of course. The problem is not the bolts or the NASA. It's that we're still holding stuff in the air with bolts instead of doing it with antigrav. Or more realistically, it's because we're still building this stuff down here instead of doing it in orbit. -- __Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
For Want Of A Bolt
"Jumbo Shrimp"
"Military Intelligence" "Fox News" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
For Want Of A Bolt | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 24 | October 28th 03 04:22 PM |
Bolt catchers | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 1 | August 29th 03 12:23 AM |