Re: 1teraflops cell processor possible?

Robert Myers  <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Sorry, Del, but Blue Gene makes about as much sense as the Space
>>> Shuttle did.
>>
>>Actually the space shuttle made sense.  It just didn't work out like
>>they envisioned.  It was to be a prototype for a next generation of
>>reusable orbital vehicles, as I recall.  Instead folks lost interest and
>>the prototype became the final.  How like computer architecture is that?
>
>Well, no it didn't, and it still doesn't.  Trying to fly something
>with wings to the ground from orbit and to get it to land like an
>airplane is a dumb, and, as we have learned, a very dangerous idea.  
>
>The guys with blue uniforms and eagles and silver stars on their
>epaulets got those eagles and silver stars, for the most part, flying
>things with wings, and thus, wings it shall be.  A parachute, you
>know, is something you use when you've been shot down.
>
>The space shuttle was an outgrowth of the DynaSoar lifting body
>program proposed in the late 60's.  There is just no way to get around
>it: to dissipate the kinetic energy of orbiting around the earth, you
>have to dissipate alot of heat, and a lifting body just isn't the
>right shape for doing it safely.
>
>The space shuttle was sold to congress based on completely unrealistic
>estimates of just about everything: cost, safety, schedule; and the
>program as it has played out has borne no resemblance at all to what
>was sold.  Not mind you, because the rocket scientists didn't deliver,
>but because the original plan was just plain stupid.

Uhhhh.... ok.  You aren't an aerospace engineer or historian.
And it shows.

I don't know what you've been reading, but I'm going to suggest
that you get yourself to a library and/or Amazon and read 
Dennis Jenkins _Space Shuttle: The History of the National
Space Transportation System: The First 100 Missions_
(ISBN 0963397451) as soon as you can.

Going backwards through your points...

The Space Shuttle program was originally sold assuming an R&D
program which was twice as expensive as the one which Congress
and Nixon's budgeteers eventually authorized.  We will never
know whether the original concepts would have been as
safe, reliable, and operational as the original plan
intended.  Congress said "Chop the budget in Half" and 
NASA failed to rescope the deliverables used in PR speak,
but the vehicle changes that resulted were clearly known
to anyone looking at the analysis.

The wide variety (literally hundreds) of concept designs
before and after the rescope, going back into the early 1960s
in fact, are well documented in Jenkins' book (and other
places).


I am an aerospace engineer and have designed re-entry
vehicles (not that have flown, but done concept design
work) and I have *no* idea what you are talking about
regarding the lifting body shape not being 'safe'.
There are tradeoffs from ablative thermal protection
systems (heavier than tiles and metallic shingles and
the like, but can withstand higher peak loads) that
make them work better with capsules.  But there is no
law of nature that reusable thermal protection is unsafe
or that lifting re-entry / lifting bodies are somehow
inherently unsafe.  I say this as a capsule bigot and
someone who pushed very hard for OSP to consider capsules.
Capsules are cheaper.  Safety can be done right or wrong
with either capsules or lifting bodies.


The comments regarding pilots and flying things are off
base as well.  To reuse a large vehicle it has to be
flown to a relatively low velocity pinpoint landing.
At the time Shuttle was being designed, using propulsion
to land rather than wings  was thought to be a borderline
crackpot idea.  It took until DC-X for a flight demonstrator
to convince everyone otherwise.  Even today, there are advocates
both for wings and for powered vertical landings, and there
are clear technical arguments to be made on either side.


If you would like to continue this thread,
the sci.space.policy and sci.space.shuttle newsgroups
might be more appropriate.  


-george william herbert
[EMAIL PROTECTED]