Once Again, Lockheed Feels No Shame -- and No Pain

"Stephen Stocker" wrote:

The originator of this thread has well-known antagonism towards
Lockheed. Keep that in mind.

You know, just browsing through that site, I couldn't help but wonder
how *any* vehicle built in part by Lockheed-Martin manages to launch
and return safely.

The Atlas doesn't. It just goes up. And does so with an incredible
reliability. Some unscrupulous *individuals* in an otherwise highly
respected company apparently have placed so high a value on Lockheed's
launch vehicle designs that they have stooped to illegal and unethical
practices in gaining insights to Lockheed's methods.

It'd be somewhat analogous to a mission whose
computers were running Micro$oft's junk. The "anything for a buck"
mentality.

As opposed, of course, to those companies who provide launch services
gratis. Which ones were they? I can't seem to recall.

Oh well, I'm rambling, but some days I can do little else.

Sometimes it's better to be silent and *thought* a fool ...

aero_engineer wrote in message
om...
"Stephen Stocker" wrote:

The originator of this thread has well-known antagonism
towards Lockheed.

Lockheed should be prosecuted for its role in Mission 51-L.
I don't believe that's very well known at this point.

--
John Thomas Maxson, Retired Engineer (Aerospace)
Author, The Betrayal of Mission 51-L (www.mission51l.com)

In article ,
aero_engineer wrote:
"Stephen Stocker" wrote:

The originator of this thread has well-known antagonism towards
Lockheed. Keep that in mind.

As do I, but possibly for different reasons.

You know, just browsing through that site, I couldn't help but wonder
how *any* vehicle built in part by Lockheed-Martin manages to launch
and return safely.

The Atlas doesn't. It just goes up. And does so with an incredible
reliability. Some unscrupulous *individuals* in an otherwise highly
respected company apparently have placed so high a value on Lockheed's
launch vehicle designs that they have stooped to illegal and unethical
practices in gaining insights to Lockheed's methods.

The Atlas should be reliable. These people have gotten a lot of
practice building their military junk, remember.

It'd be somewhat analogous to a mission whose
computers were running Micro$oft's junk. The "anything for a buck"
mentality.

As opposed, of course, to those companies who provide launch services
gratis. Which ones were they? I can't seem to recall.

There's a difference between making money and a total lack of scruples
or morals concerning *how* one makes money.

Oh well, I'm rambling, but some days I can do little else.

Sometimes it's better to be silent and *thought* a fool ...

Thought a fool, on usenet? That's like being considered mildly
neurotic in a mental institution.

Steve

In article ,
"Brian Gaff" wrote:

A lot of the computers on the Iss ARE running microsoft's junk!

Brian

None of the truly critical ones are, Brian. Those are 386-class (unless
they've been updated) MDMs running custom-written ADA code.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks

In article , Brian Gaff wrote:
A lot of the computers on the Iss ARE running microsoft's junk!


Wow, I thought I was kidding! Hopefully nothing related to guidance or
anything critical?

Thanks for the info.

Steve