Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM and
one was
programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the
a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup
Burroughes
code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding
shouldn't
be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive CMM
Level 5
certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to
emulate.

Doug

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
...
In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89,
"Gordon Wedman" wrote:

[NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers
flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read
some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and
I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The
code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was
verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most
expensive code ever written.

NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't
be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most
recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built.

Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances
at all.

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03:
Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are
running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially
modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with
64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95.

Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years
to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the
problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are
TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have
a supercomputer on my desktop!

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/

"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
6...
"Gordon Wedman" wrote in
news:OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89:


"Geoff Schultz" wrote in message
6...
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03:

"Lew Hodgett" wrote Along the same
"time marches on" theme, it has been announced that the
USN will cease using paper charts. Conversion to be complete in
this decade.

That one will be interestingG.


Yeah, but they are running Linux on $100K computers. Are you ready
to trust your life to Bill Gates and Gateway? :-)

Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are
running
laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially modified for
use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with 64MB RAM, and a
3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95.

See: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=213

And yes, I would trust Windows...

-- Geoff

They might use laptops for some of their work but the computers flying
the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read some
time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and I
guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The code
was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was
verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most
expensive code ever written.

I wasn't trying to imply that the main computers which control the
shuttle (which are 4x redundant) ran Windows! I know full well that
those systems probably cost millions. But one has to consider that the
laptops which the shuttle astronauts use are Windows based.

My Northstar 961 chartplotter is based upon Windows NT. It's extremely
stable.

I built my first computer (SWTPC 6800) in 1974 from chips. I've spent
20+ years in the software industry of which 5 were spent in DEC's fault
tolerant group where I implemented systems with 99.999% uptime. That
group later went on to form Marathon Technolgies
http://www.marathontechnologies.com/ which based their solutions on
Windows platforms and provides 99.999% uptime. You'll find that the
vast majority of crashes are caused by I/O system synchronization
problems. The next time that you say "OK" to the fact that the drivers
haven't been certified by MicroSoft, maybe you should realize that this
may be a major contributor to the stability of your system.

So yes, people can throw stones at Microsoft, but often they really
don't understand many of the underlying issues. Please, let's not make
this a religious war and go back to the topic at hand...FCC and code
requirements.

-- Geoff

OK, just meant to add to the other posters comment that some applications do
employ above average computers and software. It seems you are more aware of
that than I am g.
Personally I have no quarrel with Windows. There are so many different
makes of computers out there, and so many different types of programs to put
on them, that only a complete dreamer would expect things to work correctly
100% of the time. If it wasn't for Windows there would be a lot fewer
personal computer users and possibly an Internet much less developed.

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM
and one was
programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the
a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup
Burroughes
code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding
shouldn't
be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive
CMM Level 5
certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to
emulate.

Doug

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
...
In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89,
"Gordon Wedman" wrote:

[NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers
flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read
some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and
I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The
code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was
verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most
expensive code ever written.

NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't
be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most
recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built.

Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances
at all.

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03:
Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are
running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially
modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with
64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95.

Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years
to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the
problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are
TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have
a supercomputer on my desktop!

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/


Yes, there are 5 computers and 5th was independently programmed. I had a
look in the book again. The 5th computer only has (had?) enough code to fly
the shuttle but could not run programs associated with the specific mission.

"Gordon Wedman" wrote in message
news:Vo3Me.134877$wr.84905@clgrps12...

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM
and one was
programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the
a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup
Burroughes
code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding
shouldn't
be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive
CMM Level 5
certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to
emulate.

Doug

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
...
In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89,
"Gordon Wedman" wrote:

[NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers
flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read
some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and
I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The
code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was
verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most
expensive code ever written.

NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't
be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most
recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were built.

Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances
at all.

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03:
Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are
running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially
modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with
64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95.

Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years
to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the
problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines are
TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have
a supercomputer on my desktop!

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/


Yes, there are 5 computers and 5th was independently programmed. I had a
look in the book again. The 5th computer only has (had?) enough code to
fly the shuttle but could not run programs associated with the specific
mission.
Exactly. It is a last ditch backup in the unlikely event that a bug common
to all 4
of the other computers causes a failure. What book are you referring to? I
read it
an article in Communications of the ACM about 1982.

On 2005-08-15 12:27:06 +1000, Jere Lull said:

In article ,
Geoff Schultz wrote:

And yes, I would trust Windows...

As one that programs rather sophisticated applications under Windows, I
don't. What I have to do at work is primarily why I have a Mac at home:
UNIX stability with a wonderful interface is such a lovely experience.

My wife had laser eye surgery to correct a severe myopia problem. I
believe she would have been legally blind without her 'coke bottle
bottom' lenses. Anyway, she now does not need glasses period now after
the procedure. First time since she was 9 years old and she is now 59
that she has not needed glasses!

The scanning of the eye surface, control of the laser beam and tracking
applications all run under guess what? WINDOWS. Purpose built systems
can achieve greater reliability than general purpose systems. And BTW
they are not connected to the internet ;-)

I too worked in the IT industry for 30+ years. OS development and
software development tools as well as hardware in the early years. A
mac user but windows is not as bad as many zealots portray it. Just too
damn complex and obfuscated when compared to the Mac;-)

--
Regards,
John Proctor VK3JP, VKV6789
S/V Chagall

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in
:

Exactly. It is a last ditch backup in the unlikely event that a bug
common to all 4
of the other computers causes a failure. What book are you referring
to? I read it
an article in Communications of the ACM about 1982.




Does anyone know how many times the Voyager spacecrafts have been rebooted
or have failed? I do know storage is on a tape cassette, of which there
are two aboard. Voyager I is running on the same tape drive...the same
cassette!!...that it was using in 1967. The other drive is booted weekly
and the drive tape is moved to prevent the rubber wheels from getting a
dent in them, but has never been used online because Tape One is still
running perfectly.....fascinating stuff so many years ago.

At the edge of the sun's influence, data rates are in bytes per MINUTE,
now, not seconds....(c;

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/
Watch the new movie about it going beyond the termination shock into the
heliopause.

Every time we contact it, it sets a new DX record....(c; Can you imagine
the ATTENUATION between it and us?!

Oh, its transmitter uses traveling wave tubes. Both of them are also STILL
working fine after 25 years on the air! The spare is still in standby...
There used to be a webpage where you could read all the data coming back
from Voyager, in near-realtime. But, now that it's so FAR out there, the
data only comes back at very long intervals so they dropped the webpage. I
tracked the traveling wave tube parameters for years from the website....

--
Larry

On 8/8/05 2:29 PM, in article , "Larry"
wrote:

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2005/07/20/100/?nc=1

Good news for boaters! FCC proposes to drop ALL Morse code requirements on
ALL licenses! THE TIME OF YOUR HAM LICENSE HAS ARRIVED!

The public comment window is open! Tell the FCC to get rid of the code!

Now, they should replace the code test with a TYPING test so you can carry
on a decent conversation with those dunderheads that can't type 5wpm on
packet, pactor, PSK31, RTTY, etc........No typing endorsement, no data
modes!

As an Extra Class, I also propose to drop the stupid ARRL band segregation
on "class" and "modes". How stupid....

73 DE W4CSC


Maybe it is time to say Morse Code has outlived it's usefulness. I have
heard that the RadioTelegraph license requirement has been dropped for
shipboard radio operators. Could just be it's not needed but I still think
there is a place for it. Just as most of the theory you need to know today
isn't really used anymore due to the advanced electronics. It's a way
though to "earn" your rights to operate and yes provide an educated or
somewhat educated pool of radio operators. All that aside I think there
still is a place for morse code and to eliminate it all together, I feel,
would not be in the best interest of the art of radio operators. As far as
the number of operators that use it today, I doubt there are but a handfull.
I do think that elimination of the code, except up to the highest levels of
Licensed operators would be rational but still I disagree with total
elimination of the code requirement. Just my opinion though.

Gary - KW4Z

PS With the advent of the internet and new technologies, that require more
bandwidth, I feel anything we can do to increase the ranks of Amateur Radio
operators is a good thing and if that means sacrificing the code to save the
hobby then I'm all for that. What we must not give up is education into the
rules and operating procedures as well as basic theory and operation. We
still need "educated" professional operators.

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...

"Gordon Wedman" wrote in message
news:Vo3Me.134877$wr.84905@clgrps12...

"Doug Dotson" dougdotson@NOSPAMcablespeedNOSPAMcom wrote in message
...
Actually, there are 5 computers on the shuttle. 4 were programmed by IBM
and one was
programmed totally independently by Burroughs I think. Reason was so the
a systematic bug in the IBM code would not likely show up in the backup
Burroughes
code. INteresting that you say that NASA is a good example of how coding
shouldn't
be done, but the Shuttle project software group was the first to acheive
CMM Level 5
certification. It was the target that all groups seeking CMM strove to
emulate.

Doug

"Jere Lull" wrote in message
...
In article OoaLe.175420$9A2.145434@edtnps89,
"Gordon Wedman" wrote:

[NASA] might use laptops for some of their work but the computers
flying the shuttle are rather different. According to a book I read
some time ago these little boxes (there were 4 of them originally and
I guess this has not changed) were built to be bullet-proof. The
code was written by IBM and every one of the 100,000 plus lines was
verified more than once. The book said it was some of the most
expensive code ever written.

NASA's code has been used as a textbook example of how coding shouldn't
be done. Computers and programming have evolved greatly since the most
recent NASA (almost wrote NACA, since they are that old) OSs were
built.

Sometimes it's not so much how well the bear dances but that it dances
at all.

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in
news:Xk4Le.17506$Ie.6745@lakeread03:
Who's running on a $100K computer? Even the shuttle astronauts are
running laptops, which happen to be IBM ThinkPad 760XD specially
modified for use in space. The 760XD uses a 166MHz Pentium with
64MB RAM, and a 3.0 GB removable hard drive. They run Windows 95.

Yes, space has special concerns, but it shouldn't take 10 or more years
to develop a space-hardened computer. Yes, it's rocket science, but the
problem isn't the technicians, but the bureaucrats. Current machines
are
TWENTY times faster, with hundreds of times more capacity. Hell, I have
a supercomputer on my desktop!

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/


Yes, there are 5 computers and 5th was independently programmed. I had a
look in the book again. The 5th computer only has (had?) enough code to
fly the shuttle but could not run programs associated with the specific
mission.
Exactly. It is a last ditch backup in the unlikely event that a bug common
to all 4
of the other computers causes a failure. What book are you referring to? I
read it
an article in Communications of the ACM about 1982.


What book are you referring to?

Sorry, I don't recall the title and the book is at my brother's. It is a
hardcover book, 8 1/2 x 11, about 250 pages. I purchased it when I visited
KSC in the '90s. It describes early research leading up to the shuttle
program, the program itself and the vehicles. Lots of interesting tidbits,
for example, those turbo pumps in the main engines run at 30,000 rpm to
pump huge amounts of liquid H2 and O2.

GK User wrote in
:

PS With the advent of the internet and new technologies, that
require more bandwidth, I feel anything we can do to increase the
ranks of Amateur Radio operators is a good thing and if that means
sacrificing the code to save the hobby then I'm all for that. What we
must not give up is education into the rules and operating procedures
as well as basic theory and operation. We still need "educated"
professional operators.



Ham radio will be lucky if it survives to 2010. Go to any hamfest and
figure out the average age of the attendees is around 60, the few ham kids
included. Most kids can't figure out why they'd ever want a ham radio when
they can simply boot their computers, now with broadband, and talk to their
friends in Hong Kong without some old coot bitching at them that they are
on his private frequency he's been on since 1948 with his other old coot
friends. The old coots are killing ham radio. They hate kids on the air.

Naw...Not only has the code outlived itself by 30 years....so hasn't ham
radio.

73 DE W4CSC
old coot since 1957

NNNN

In article , Larry
wrote:

Oh, its transmitter uses traveling wave tubes. Both of them are also STILL
working fine after 25 years on the air!

More important: 25 years IN no air. (Loss of "vacuum" is the primary
root cause of failures) Didn't one of Edison's first primitive light
bulbs recently die after staying lit for many, many years?

--
Jere Lull
Xan-a-Deux ('73 Tanzer 28 #4 out of Tolchester, MD)
Xan's Pages: http://members.dca.net/jerelull/X-Main.html
Our BVI FAQs (290+ pics) http://homepage.mac.com/jerelull/BVI/