On 8/25/2024 11:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The Boeing spacesuit is made to work with the Starliner spacecraft,
and the SpaceX spacesuit is made to work with the Dragon spacecraft,
NASA told Fox News Digital. =93Both were designed to fit each unique
spacecraft.
Oops. I suspect that SpaceX will send up a couple of new space suits on=20 >>>> the next supply spaceship.
For Apollo-Soyuz, the Soviets made up some adaptor boxes that went from the >> American space suit connections to the Russian ones (as well as the adaptor >> ring to connect the two capsules). I am surprised this is not a solution. >>
See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.
The ISO isn't really all that useful in the real world, partly because they >> promote standards without reference to how systems are used in the real world
and partly because they charge money for the standards meaning small
organizations are strongly discouraged from following new ISO standards that >> are not already in common use.
The whole upside-down-wedding cake of networking protocols looked great but >> didn't map in practice to what people were really using, and when tcp/ip took
over the world it was like a steamroller over top of the ISO.
--scott
For a of couple years around 1990, I actually had to deal with
OSI protocols at MITRE.
Good riddance.
pt
On 8/25/2024 1:37 PM, Ted Nolan <tednolan> wrote:
In article <vafltb$1vf5n$1@dont-email.me>,real world
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/25/2024 11:22 AM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
The Boeing spacesuit is made to work with the Starliner spacecraft, >>>>>> and the SpaceX spacesuit is made to work with the Dragon spacecraft, >>>>>> NASA told Fox News Digital. =93Both were designed to fit each unique >>>>>> spacecraft.
Oops. I suspect that SpaceX will send up a couple of new space suits on=20
the next supply spaceship.
For Apollo-Soyuz, the Soviets made up some adaptor boxes that went from the
American space suit connections to the Russian ones (as well as the adaptor
ring to connect the two capsules). I am surprised this is not a solution. >>>>
See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.
The ISO isn't really all that useful in the real world, partly because they
promote standards without reference to how systems are used in the
tcp/ip tookand partly because they charge money for the standards meaning small
organizations are strongly discouraged from following new ISO standards that
are not already in common use.
The whole upside-down-wedding cake of networking protocols looked great but
didn't map in practice to what people were really using, and when
over the world it was like a steamroller over top of the ISO.
--scott
For a of couple years around 1990, I actually had to deal with
OSI protocols at MITRE.
Good riddance.
pt
I got sent to a conference on it around the same time. My reaction was
similiar: We already do all this stuff (file transfer, email etc)
with existing protocols. Why tear it all up?
Apparently everyone felt the same.
I was told 'OSI is official and standardized, and the government will
mandate its use'.
I remember the same thing said about Ada, a bit earlier.
pt
On 8/26/2024 4:36 PM, Cryptoengineer wrote:
On 8/26/2024 2:49 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
On 8/26/2024 11:34 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On 25 Aug 2024 15:22:34 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote: >>>>>
For Apollo-Soyuz, the Soviets made up some adaptor boxes that went >>>>>> from =the
American space suit connections to the Russian ones (as well as the = >>>>> adaptor
ring to connect the two capsules). I am surprised this is not a = >>>>> solution.
Sadly, the Soviets (and their technology) are long gone.
I beg to differ - Soviet technology is still here. Ukraine has
destroyed 3336 tanks so far, most of those from the soviet era.
The still use Soviet Soyuz boosters.
One might note that Putin desires the return of the Sovyetky Soyuz.
Don't forget the 14,000 soviet nuclear weapons. Thousands of the
battlefield nuclear weapons are being distributed to the Russian
troops right now. The Ukranian advance is 300 miles inside Russia and
they are not going to burn Moscow this time.
While even one nuke in a Western City would be Very Bad News, its
legitimate to wonder how many Soviet nuclear bombs are operational.
American nukes, and presumably Soviet/Russian ones, have the inital
fission element include a neutron generator as part of the ignition.
This uses some isotopes of relatively short half-lifes, such as tritium,
which gives the bombs a limited shelf life before they need to be
refurbished.
pt
I suggest that we do not want to find out as apparently several are
targeted for Berlin and a few other German cities. I am not sure if
London is targeted.
On 8/26/2024 5:15 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
I suggest that we do not want to find out as apparently several are
targeted for Berlin and a few other German cities. I am not sure if
London is targeted.
Apparently? Not Sure? or baseless speculation.
“WW3 WATCH: As Traditional Strategic Nuclear Deterrence Wears Off,
Russian Doctrine Threshold Gets Lowered and Navy Trains for Preemptive >Tactical Nuke Attacks”
https://www.thegatewaydumbshit.com/2024/08/ww3-watch-as-traditional-strategic-nuclear-deterrence-wears/
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
On 8/26/2024 5:15 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
I suggest that we do not want to find out as apparently several are
targeted for Berlin and a few other German cities. I am not sure if
London is targeted.
Apparently? Not Sure? or baseless speculation.
“WW3 WATCH: As Traditional Strategic Nuclear Deterrence Wears Off, >>Russian Doctrine Threshold Gets Lowered and Navy Trains for Preemptive >>Tactical Nuke Attacks”
https://www.thegatewaydumbshit.com/2024/08/ww3-watch-as-traditional-strategic-nuclear-deterrence-wears/
Unreliable source.
Extremely unreliable source.
Definitely baseless speculation.
Try again.
On 26/08/2024 06:08, Paul S Person wrote:
[SNIP]
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agreeAre you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?
to use anything else in /their/ components, and at least using metric
will make the entire mission doesn't just die on reaching its
destination.
I'll help you, it's three: Liberia, Myanmar, and the USA.
I wouldn't like being lumped in with Myanmar...
Gary R. Schmidt <grschmidt@acm.org> wrote:
On 26/08/2024 06:08, Paul S Person wrote:
[SNIP]
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agreeAre you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?
to use anything else in /their/ components, and at least using metric
will make the entire mission doesn't just die on reaching its
destination.
I'll help you, it's three: Liberia, Myanmar, and the USA.
I wouldn't like being lumped in with Myanmar...
I was surprised when in Scotland for Worldcon that all of the speed limit >signs were in miles per hour, especially when the ones in England are all >metric. I mentioned this to my host who shrugged and said that Scotland
is different.
And when we were visiting a cognac distillery a couple years back I was >surprised to see distillation temperatures in Rheaumur....
On 8/27/2024 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:34:21 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
The still use Soviet Soyuz boosters.
One might note that Putin desires the return of the Sovyetky Soyuz.
They may use them (and lose them) but do they understand them well
enough to pair their spacecraft with ours?
They routinely dock with the international space station, so the
answer is yes.
The US and the USSR jointly agreed to use a compatible docking
port over 50 years ago - remember Apollo-Soyuz in 1975? Its still
in use.
The Soyuz launcher, btw, is one of the most reliable rockets ever
built. There have been over 1700 launches.
On 8/28/2024 7:29 AM, Torbjorn Lindgren wrote:
Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
On 8/27/2024 1:40 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
The Soyuz launcher, btw, is one of the most reliable rockets ever
built. There have been over 1700 launches.
It kind of varies depending on variant. Soyuz-FG was pretty good, 70
launches with just one failure but Soyuz-U was less so, a whopping 786
launches but also 22 failures (that they acknowledge!).
And the record for the current version, Soyuz 2, is worse than U...
One source gives: 160 orbital plus 1 suborbital, with 4 full failures
and 2 partial.
Another say: 178 total launches, with 7 full or partial failures,
sources differ.
The corresponding statistics for the current version of Falcon 9,
Block 5 is: 311 orbital launches, 1 failure (Starlink 9-3), no partial
failures. That's a failure rate more than an order of magnitude lower
than Soyuz 2's record! and until very recently it 300+ launches with NO
failures.
And if we take the entire programs (all Soyuz vs all Falcon 9 & Falcon
Heavy) it's a convincing "win" for SpaceX (by a factor of roughly 2 to
3). But yes, the Soyuz as a whole it probably deserves the "one of"
even if the Soyuz 2 doesn't, though mostly through sheer numbers
launched during the Soviet era.
Which is why even before Russias invasion of Ukraine the insurance
premium for Falcon 9 was noticeably lower than that for Soyuz, whether
launched from Russia (lots of recent failures) or by ESA (no faiures
but only got up to 9 launches AFAIK).
I am surprised that Musk would insure any of his space rockets. Now his >customers, yes.
I doubt ANY of the launch companies have ever insured any of their
launches! I expect that even if they wanted it would be very hard to
find someone that was willing to do so.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 00:07:12 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,718 |