From: Sean Michael Whipkey [highway@cstone.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:53 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Science Fiction (computers) "Heivilin, Jim" wrote: > Jim "at least you didn't mention FreeBSD" Oh, and what's *that* supposed to mean? :-) :-) SeanMike -- SeanMike Whipkey - highway@cstone.net - http://www.cstone.net Engineering Department, Cornerstone Networks, Inc. - 804.817.7000 "This is a world where a geomantically-trained ninja interior decorator can wreak havoc." - Feng Shui [paraphrased] *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Christopher Gribbon [c.gribbon@dundee.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 5:28 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Science Fiction (computers) >> An interesting note on computers, the International Space Station is using >> 386 processors. There are two reasons for this (NASA has stated). Firstly, >> proven technology is liked better by engineers in high risk situations. >> Secondly, the newer, faster chips have tiny little switchs which can be >> thrown by radiation that the atmosphere shields us from. Thus the technology >> we currently can use in space applications is limited by its small size. >> Sort of ironic. > > Actually I'd like to add a little something to >this. My father worked as a contracting electronics >engineer. This meant that he moved around doing different >work for various companies over the years including a >couple of military items. On a few occasions pieces of NASA >equipment passed through his hands and he says that a lot >of the stuff was incredibly bad. Sometimes they had to take >the things apart and completely rewire them. I don't know >about any of you but I found this a little bit disturbing. I remember hearing an amusing parable once about space stations, NASA etc. It went rought as follows (though I'm sure the figures are out by a lot - but please don't complain: I am completely ignorant of the actual facts, and it's the general jist I'm after): If you want to build a space station, there are basically 3 ways to do it: [1] You can ask a bunch of amateur space enthusiasts (who'll basically work for coffee and doughnuts and for even the barest sniff of a chance to get into space). If you pay them $1 Million and give them a year, they'll build a station out of tin cans and gaffa tape. It'll work - but only just, and will need a lot of maintainance. [2] You can contract Boeing or some other Aerospace company. They'll take $10 Million and in a year they'll build you a professionally constructed, efficient, working space station. OR [3] You can pay NASA $100 Million, and they'll come back a year later with 100 reasons why it can't be done. Christopher Gribbon Vision Research Laboratories Medical Sciences Institute University of Dundee Dundee DD1 5EH UK (01382) 344 229 ____________________________________________________________________ "A scientist is meant to be disinterested, pure; his ambition merely to descry the cement of the universe. He isn't meant to use it to start laying his own patio!" - WILL SELF, The Quantity Theory of Insanity *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Kevin L Nault [jskln1@uas.alaska.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:35 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Re: Sci-fi Planewalker wrote: > > This is what I'm referring to when I say we really can't predict what > kind of technology we're going to have come 2199. When so many people of > a scientific bent are working on a problem, someone may have a revelation > that speeds things up massivly. Like the vacuum tube example: Sure, they But only one person - I don't think having more people makes that big a difference for breakthroughs, just refinements. Read on... > were working on smaller vacuum tubes, but then someone thought up the > transistor, which completely changed the way people were thinking. These > paradigm shifts often cause the progress of technology to be somewhat But that very unpredictability is what I'm talking about; you can't be sure it'll advance either, since it's not by plodding steps that things like the transistor or the Universal Theory of Gravitation don't happen because of the number of man-hours put into something; man hours only really count for refinements. The world-busting shifts tend to be bolt-of-lightning breakthroughs accomplished by one genius, that dozens or hundreds of people refine over time. Look at radar: some radio tech noticed, as had everyone at his station, that a ship passing your tower made an echo, and sometimes blocked comms. The rest of the people working there just waited for the ships to pass, but this guy figured out how to see bombers. > unpredictable, especially when we're dealing with 200 years of > development. Closer to 120, since Earth was kind of focused for 80+ yrs. > And, to bring the point back around, that's my argument when people say > the tech in BP doesn't seem "real" enough. How can we ever be "real" > about it when we can barely see head 10 years? Actually, I like it fine. I think it accounts well for the way tech really advances. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Kevin L Nault [jskln1@uas.alaska.edu] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 9:37 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - Science Fiction (computers) Halley1682@aol.com wrote: > > An interesting note on computers, the International Space Station is using > 386 processors. There are two reasons for this (NASA has stated). Firstly, > proven technology is liked better by engineers in high risk situations. > Secondly, the newer, faster chips have tiny little switchs which can be > thrown by radiation that the atmosphere shields us from. Thus the technology > we currently can use in space applications is limited by its small size. > Sort of ironic. Not too surprising; the space shuttles run on 8 redundant 68000 or 80286 systems (can't remember which - not much difference anyway.) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.