>>This is done pat. The ACTS satellite flying on the shuttle next week is an
>>example of a completely new communications technology (Including componets,
>
>Actually ACTS is a 12 year old completely new communications
>technology.
>
So what? I merely proves the paridgm that commercial entities won't do it
until it is provedn in government missions.
>ACTS is nice, but we do need more and faster experimental
>test beds.
>
No argument from anyone there.
>>operational methodologies, and a new bus) that will be tested along with
>>their ground based compliments. The STRV satellite being built by BMDO and
>
>I don't know about STRV. But we do
>need to get more testing and qualification
>programs.
Tell you what, why don't you quit whining about it. Why don't you go to a
nearby research university, start a research center, (It is real easy to do)
go for some grants and start raising money to do just that. Running your
mouth on sci.space does nothing for the future of spaceflight except tick
me off to do these very things so I can shove it down your throats.
In a less serious vein that is what we are doing here.
>
>>
>>Also, on many shuttle flights now we are flying new stuff that is being
>>qualified, such as our MacIntosh SI Experiment controller. This obviously will
>>help to lower the costs of experiment hardware flown on the shuttle.
>>
>
>WE are doing stuff on shuttle, except it's not a regular committed
>program just to test and qualify. it's a loose ad-hox type thing.
>
>A specific test program with test targets is far better.
>
Again, if you are so dang smart about this stuff why aren't you doing it?
This whole thread is akin to a beer drinking slob who watches monday night
football, telling everyone how he could have performed better than Joe
Montanna. If you belive in this enough DO IT!~
>
>>is inherent in the "let the commercial people" do everything. Fear of failure
>>in government usually only gets you re-assigned. Often in the commercial
>
>Failure in government has a tendency to get one promoted
>as long as the paper trail doesn't point back to you.
>
And success in government gets you nothing quite frequently, but there are still
thousands of dedicated people who are giving there professional lives to do
a good job at a salary less than what they could get from the commercial world.
>
>>be nowhere without it. Many of the components of SEDSAT 1 are from
>>military programs that either lost their flight or are giving these to us
>>for the technology demonstration. Why? Because if we mess up it is not their
>>cookies in the fire.
>
>All the more reason for a regular flight test office.
>
>If the test office breaks something, why it's
>part of the mission.
>
>pat
>
Unfortunately any government office, unless it is staffed by very dedicated
people will eventually fall into the trap of no mistakes allowed.
Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 1993 20:21:13 GMT
From: "Michael C. Jensen" <mjensen@gem.valpo.edu>
Subject: Hubble solar arrays: how'd they foul up?
Newsgroups: sci.space
wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov wrote:
: >>is inherent in the "let the commercial people" do everything. Fear of failure
: >>in government usually only gets you re-assigned. Often in the commercial
: >
: >Failure in government has a tendency to get one promoted
: >as long as the paper trail doesn't point back to you.
: >
: And success in government gets you nothing quite frequently, but there are still
: thousands of dedicated people who are giving there professional lives to do
: a good job at a salary less than what they could get from the commercial world.
You know, something that people often fail to notice.. ;) most of those
working in the space program help every day to makeit more efficient
by accepting lower saleries and benifits just because they beleive in
what they are doing..
: Dennis, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Mike
--
Michael C. Jensen Valparaiso University/Johnson Space Center
mjensen@gem.valpo.edu "I bet the human brain is a kludge." -- Marvin Minsky
jensen@cisv.jsc.nasa.gov *WindowsNT - From the people who brought you edlin*
---Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own... ---
------------------------------
Date: 29 Jul 1993 13:54 CDT
From: wingo%cspara.decnet@Fedex.Msfc.Nasa.Gov
Subject: In article 876@access.digex.net, prb@access.digex.net (Pat) writes:
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <ab2M02tC4bA901@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>, haw30@ras.amdahl.com writes...
>>
>The DC-2 and DC-3 differ primarily in a larger cabin cross-section for the DC-3.
>They were similar enough that during WWII, DC-2's were often canabalized to repair DC-3's, and on at least one occasion a DC-2 wing was mated to a DC-3 resulting in
>the rather well known DC-2 1/2 (there were slight differences in the wing).
>
>---
>Henry Worth
>No, I don't speak for Amdahl... I'm not even sure I speak for myself.
>
Really pushing it here but that particular plane is still flying. Our Church
in Los Angeles bought that plane in China about 8 years ago. It still had
the DC-2 wingo attached. It was noticably shorter than the DC3 wing. We
shipped it back and replaced the wing and it is still flying.
