Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?

From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 03/12/05 

Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 04:58:19 +0000 (UTC)

Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
: news:d0srdv$238h$1@news.ums.edu...
: > Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) 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.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... :>: inflexible mainframes, ... Today's servers resemble ... terminals are not similar to today's PC. ... :>: launch vehicle startups over the decades that have failed. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Difference between Servers and Mainframes...
    ... With mainframes, users sit in front of terminals. ... data storage happens at the mainframe end. ... With servers, users usually use a PC ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.general)
  • Re: What are the practical (or real) advantages of Intel VT and TxT
    ... their customers who have built their careers round mainframes, ... It seems as if, by virtualizing Linux, you are giving up one of the ... busy, you're burning big money), and aggregating lots of servers is ... buy blade servers for the test farm. ...
    (comp.sys.intel)
  • Re: request for some help in testing specific code
    ... do you think that mainframe-specific operating systems aren't widely used ... mainframes supporting the largest organizations on earth ... The total number of servers installed globally can be estimated based on some insider ... The values can be compared against IDC Market Research Information, ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: request for some help in testing specific code
    ... Counting the number of "machines" that are mainframes and/or counting ... The total number of servers installed globally can be estimated based on some ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)