1 Feb
2003
1 Feb
'03
9:31 a.m.
I do feel for the astronaut's families, and in
almost equal measure for the
future of humanity in space. We have *got* to find a better way of getting
in and out of the gravity well.
As sick as it seems... these kind of accidents are exactly what brings
about the safer ways of doing things.
Nearly all safety measures we as society have for everything can be
traced back to someone (or many someones) being injured or killed.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net>
1:18 p.m.
One would hope. Although a new platform, as we all here know perhaps
more than most, is going to have more bugs than the 22 year old shuttle
platform. Still, hopefully they'll start funding SSTO more.
On Saturday, February 1, 2003, at 07:40 PM, Mike Ford wrote:
As sick as it
seems... these kind of accidents are exactly what brings
about the safer ways of doing things.
My only hope is that this results in a push for a new vehicle design,
not a general pulling away from manned space. 
1:34 p.m.
Right on.
In a previous life I did a bunch of prelim work on the X-30 (as well as
hands on work on OV-99, OV-103, 4, 5.) Be nice to see the old plans
dusted off. Maybe updated a decade or so and BUILT. Single stage to orbit.
Jim
Mike Ford wrote:
As sick as it
seems... these kind of accidents are exactly what brings
about the safer ways of doing things.
My only hope is that this results in a push for a new vehicle design,
not a general pulling away from manned space.
. 
4:48 p.m.
My only hope is that this results in a push for a new
vehicle design,
not a general pulling away from manned space.
Bring back the Delta Clipper! Built out of proven, working hardware,
instead of the damn X-33 and X-34 designs that were chosen instead,
and found to be made of unobtanium. If there's anyone at NASA that
I'd like to see RIF'd, it's the bozos that made that brain-damaged
X34 decision.
11:48 p.m.
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35 years? That's still a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the detractors may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Cheers...
Ed
San Antonio, Tx, USA
From: "chris" <cb(a)mythtech.net>
>I do feel for the astronaut's families, and in
almost equal measure for
the
>future of humanity in space. We have *got* to find
a better way of
getting
in and out of
the gravity well.
As sick as it seems... these kind of accidents are exactly what brings
about the safer ways of doing things.
Nearly all safety measures we as society have for everything can be
traced back to someone (or many someones) being injured or killed.
-chris
<http://www.mythtech.net> 
2:51 a.m.
Martin Marshall wrote:
Ed Tillman wrote:
And then it was not the plane but the tires.
Mind you both the shuttle and Concorde are about
the same era of techology, time for a update on
both. Ben.
PS. Bad luck can happen anywhere, I read somewhere
about a fire in a plane and several lives were
lost and the plane was parked on the ground.
Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can
make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Concorde 
1:14 a.m.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big NASA fan. But if you look at number of
flights or flight hours against losses, it's far worse than the commercial
airline industry. Granted, it's a lot more complex, but if we're going to
sling just numbers around with no adjustment for risk factors, etc...
--John
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]On
Behalf Of Ed Tillman
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 08:39
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Columbia
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3*
complete craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35 years?
That's still a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the
detractors may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can
make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner
that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Cheers...
Ed
San Antonio, Tx, USA
From: "chris" <cb(a)mythtech.net>
what brings
> about the safer ways of doing things.
>
> Nearly all safety measures we as society have for everything can be
> traced back to someone (or many someones) being injured or killed.
>
>
> -chris
> <http://www.mythtech.net>
>I do feel for the astronaut's families,
and in almost
equal measure for
the
>future of humanity in space. We have *got* to
find a better way of
getting
in and out
of the gravity well.
As sick as it seems... these kind of accidents are exactly 
1:47 a.m.
New subject: OT re: Columbia (long diatribe)
J.C.Wren wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm a big NASA fan.
As am I.
But if you look at number of
flights or flight hours against losses, it's far worse than the commercial
airline industry. Granted, it's a lot more complex, but if we're going to
sling just numbers around with no adjustment for risk factors, etc...
Numbers, numbers. For a while there on the BBC website they were citing
a failure rate of 2 per 113 as being equivalent to not surviving a month
if you took your car to and from work every day.
They (later) added that taking into account hours flown, space-flight is
about 4 times riskier than commercial flying, and taking account
miles travelled, space flight is the safest means of transport.
So which is it?
Of course it is risky, always will be, but so if crossing the road to
catch a bus. We live is a world of risk.
I wonder how many pioneering aviators were killed in the first 40 years
of flying, that is from 1903 to 1943 - several hundred I would imagine
(anyone know of the figures). Was that too high a cost for the (possibly
debatable) benefits of commercial flying today.
The difference is, I think, the media. Whereas pioneering aviators who
died were reported relativly anonymously in newspapers, days or weeks
later, today we have instant replays of almost the entire lives of each
crew-member and all their families the same morning. It makes it a much
more personal affair and people react emotionally.
Don't get me wrong, I feel of the families who lost ther loved ones
yesterday, but it stops there. Those brave astronauts knew the risks,
accepted them willingly, and performed magnificently. Given half a
chance I would fly the shuttle tomorrow.
What bothers me is the possibility that NASA will be forced to quit on
manned spaceflight and the nay-sayers will (finally) manage to kill a
project they see as a waste of money and effort. The shuttle itself
as originally designed was a fully resusable vehicle. Budget cutbacks
and naysayers resulted in the hybrid version we know (and love) today.
How much safer (and in the long run cheaper) would that original design
have been?
Sorry for the rant, but I needed to get it off my chest.
Normal programs will resume shortly......
-- hbp
3:31 a.m.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Ed Tillman wrote:
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses
for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35 years? That's still a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the detractors may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
4:25 a.m.
...for that
matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35 years? That's still a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the detractors may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines. 
4:30 a.m.
Columbia.. I regret it happened ...
But is this not a classic-computer talk-group?
I don't want to receive such e-mails anymore... These are far off-topic...
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Eric Dittman
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 19:23
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: Re: Columbia
Southwest Airlines is an airline, not airliner. He was asking
for a model of passenger airplane.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> ...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew
losses for the shuttle
> program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete
craft/crew
> losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's still
a
> damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the detractors
may
say... Name
me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines. 
5:06 a.m.
I think they are on-topic. We've got four Ibm 360's onboard. Something
like that.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Computermuseum
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 1:25 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Columbia
Columbia.. I regret it happened ...
But is this not a classic-computer talk-group?
I don't want to receive such e-mails anymore... These are far
off-topic...
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Eric Dittman
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 19:23
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: Re: Columbia
Southwest Airlines is an airline, not airliner. He was asking
for a model of passenger airplane.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> ...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew
losses for the
shuttle
> program in over 20 years; and including these,
only *3* complete
craft/crew
> losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's
still
a
> damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the
detractors
may
> say... Name me an aircraft or series of
aircraft who can make the
same
> claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the
*1* airliner that
comes
closest to
beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines.
5:55 a.m.
They are not that ancient... and by the way... how do you know that... are
you a NASA engineer?
With best regards,
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Jeffrey S. Worley
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 20:05
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: RE: Columbia
I think they are on-topic. We've got four Ibm 360's onboard. Something
like that.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Computermuseum
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 1:25 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Columbia
Columbia.. I regret it happened ...
But is this not a classic-computer talk-group?
I don't want to receive such e-mails anymore... These are far
off-topic...
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Eric Dittman
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 19:23
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: Re: Columbia
Southwest Airlines is an airline, not airliner. He was asking
for a model of passenger airplane.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> ...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew
losses for the
shuttle
> program in over 20 years; and including these,
only *3* complete
craft/crew
> losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's
still
a
> damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the
detractors
may
> say... Name me an aircraft or series of
aircraft who can make the
same
> claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the
*1* airliner that
comes
closest to
beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines.
6:02 a.m.
Oh no. Nothing like that. I read something somewhere that intimated
that they had really ancient IBM gear onboard.
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Computermuseum
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:50 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Columbia
They are not that ancient... and by the way... how do you know that...
are
you a NASA engineer?
With best regards,
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Jeffrey S. Worley
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 20:05
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: RE: Columbia
I think they are on-topic. We've got four Ibm 360's onboard. Something
like that.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Computermuseum
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 1:25 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Columbia
Columbia.. I regret it happened ...
But is this not a classic-computer talk-group?
I don't want to receive such e-mails anymore... These are far
off-topic...
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Eric Dittman
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 19:23
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: Re: Columbia
Southwest Airlines is an airline, not airliner. He was asking
for a model of passenger airplane.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> ...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew
losses for the
shuttle
> program in over 20 years; and including these,
only *3* complete
craft/crew
> losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's
still
a
> damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the
detractors
may
> say... Name me an aircraft or series of
aircraft who can make the
same
> claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the
*1* airliner that
comes
closest to
beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines.
9:41 a.m.
Also, I thought their most modern CPU was a 486DX equivalent...
From: "Jeffrey S. Worley" <Technoid(a)30below.com>
Oh no. Nothing like that. I read something somewhere
that intimated
that they had really ancient IBM gear onboard.
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Computermuseum
They are not that ancient... and by the way... how do you know that...
are you a NASA engineer?
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: RE: Columbia
I think they are on-topic. We've got four Ibm
360's onboard. Something
like that.
Subject: RE: Columbia
Columbia.. I regret it happened ...
But is this not a classic-computer talk-group?
I don't want to receive such e-mails anymore... These are far
off-topic...
Michel
11:55 a.m.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Ed Tillman wrote:
Also, I thought their most modern CPU was a 486DX
equivalent...
I'd be curious to know what onboard computer systems they've used over
the years. Honeywell Space Systems has an interesting page with a
mention of some Shuttle and ISS related computers:
http://content.honeywell.com/Space/products/Electronics.htm
http://content.honeywell.com/Space/hsf/default.htm
http://content.honeywell.com/Space/SpaceShuttle.htm
Most of it is rather vague, though there are mentions of Intel
processors with added mathcoprocessors. And there's a mention of
a 32-bit 80960 in there.
I wonder what they were using during the early 1980s.
-brian.
3 Feb
3 Feb
6:02 p.m.
I think they are on-topic. We've got four Ibm
360's onboard.
No, they have five AP-101S General Purpose Computers on board. The
AP-101S and the earlier AP-101B are derived from the computer used in
the F-15 fighter. The architecture actually quite a bit different
from that of the System/360, though there are
similarities. The
System/360 had sixteen 32-bit general registers, while the AP-101
has
two separate sets of eight registers. The System/360 could address
sixteen megabytes, but the AP-101 can only address one megabyte, and
it is awkward to address more than 256 Kbytes.
But the AP-101B is over ten years old, and I think *some* of the AP-101S
computers are, so they're on-topic.
Space Shuttle issues other than the computers are off-topic.
Does anyone have the manuals for HAL/S, the language used for the AP-101
software? There's some info on it at:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Appendix-II.html
6 Feb
6 Feb
9:10 a.m.
New subject: Columbia -- Computers
Avoided the OT but the shuttle (earlier one?) also used a
modified Grid laptop.
http://www.nasm.si.edu/nasm/dsh/artifacts/GC-
PayloadComputer.htm
Lawrence
On 3 Feb 2003, , Eric Smith wrote:
lgwalker@ mts.net
I think they
are on-topic. We've got four Ibm 360's
onboard.
No, they have five AP-101S General Purpose Computers on
board. The AP-101S and the earlier AP-101B are derived from
the computer used in the F-15 fighter. The architecture
actually quite a bit different from that of the System/360,
though there are similarities. The System/360 had sixteen
32-bit general registers, while the AP-101 has two separate
sets of eight registers. The System/360 could address
sixteen megabytes, but the AP-101 can only address one
megabyte, and it is awkward to address more than 256 Kbytes.
But the AP-101B is over ten years old, and I think *some* of
the AP-101S computers are, so they're on-topic.
Space Shuttle issues other than the computers are off-topic.
Does anyone have the manuals for HAL/S, the language used
for the AP-101 software? There's some info on it at:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/computers/Appe
ndix-II.html 
4 Feb
4 Feb
1:55 p.m.
If you don't want off-topic emails, subscibe to CCTECH, not CCTALK.
Peace... Sridhar
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Computermuseum wrote:
Columbia.. I regret it happened ...
But is this not a classic-computer talk-group?
I don't want to receive such e-mails anymore... These are far off-topic...
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Eric Dittman
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 19:23
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: Re: Columbia
Southwest Airlines is an airline, not airliner. He was asking
for a model of passenger airplane.
--
Eric Dittman
dittman(a)dittman.net
Check out the DEC Enthusiasts Club at http://www.dittman.net/
> ...for that matter, only 2 complete
craft/crew losses for the shuttle
> program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete
craft/crew
> losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's still
a
> damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the detractors
may
say...
Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines.
2 Feb
2 Feb
3:49 p.m.
On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Eric Dittman wrote:
Southwest Airlines is an airline, not airliner. He was asking
for a model of passenger airplane.
Got it. But they still have the best commercial record of any (US-based
at least) airline ;)
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses
for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35 years? That's still a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the detractors may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Southwest Airlines. 
3 Feb
3 Feb
1:07 a.m.
New subject: Airliners
Boeing 737-series?
I can think offhand of two fatal accidents, relating to problems with the
rudder. I think the problem was related to a faulty hydraulic valve causing
rapid excursions of the rudder.
- Matt
At 12:22 PM 2/2/2003 -0600, you wrote:
Matthew Sell
Programmer
On Time Support, Inc.
www.ontimesupport.com
(281) 296-6066
Join the Metrology Software discussion group METLIST!
http://www.ontimesupport.com/subscribe_t&c.htmlhtml.
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft Promotional Ad
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
Many thanks for this tagline to a fellow RGVAC'er...
> ...for
that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses for the shuttle
> program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete
craft/crew
> losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's still a
> damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the
detractors
may
> > say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
> > claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
> > closest to beating this record...) 
2 Feb
2 Feb
5:27 a.m.
Ed Tillman wrote:
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses
for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35 years? That's still a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of what the detractors may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who can make the same
SR-71 Blackbird
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1*
airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Cheers...
5:36 a.m.
The SR71 is no airliner. I've seen it take off several times when I was
in Japan. If pressed, I'd guess the Boing 747 as the safest airliner.
Barring bombs, hijackers, and other interference, I don't recall one
crashing. Maybe once.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin Handy
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:46 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Columbia
Ed Tillman wrote:
SR-71 Blackbird
>claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
>closest to beating this record...)
>Cheers...
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew losses
for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete
craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for nearly 35
years? That's still
a
damned good record in anyone's book, regardless of
what the detractors
may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft who
can make the
same
6:34 a.m.
Jeffrey S. Worley wrote:
The SR71 is no airliner. I've seen it take off
several times when I was
in Japan. If pressed, I'd guess the Boing 747 as the safest airliner.
Barring bombs, hijackers, and other interference, I don't recall one
crashing. Maybe once.
The question I responded to was "Name me an aircraft or series of
aircraft",
and the SR-71 fits into that category.
When you consider that it was frequently flown over enemy territory,
was constantly being shot at, but was never succussfully shot down, it
is an impressive record.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin Handy
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:46 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Columbia
Ed Tillman wrote:
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew
losses for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete
craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's still
a
damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the detractors
may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft
who can make the
same
SR-71 Blackbird
>claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
>closest to beating this record...)
>
>Cheers...
6:54 a.m.
hey guys... please... stop this issue...
Michel
-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org
[mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]Namens Kevin Handy
Verzonden: zondag 2 februari 2003 21:53
Aan: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Onderwerp: Re: Columbia
Jeffrey S. Worley wrote:
The SR71 is no airliner. I've seen it take off
several times when I was
in Japan. If pressed, I'd guess the Boing 747 as the safest airliner.
Barring bombs, hijackers, and other interference, I don't recall one
crashing. Maybe once.
The question I responded to was "Name me an aircraft or series of
aircraft",
and the SR-71 fits into that category.
When you consider that it was frequently flown over enemy territory,
was constantly being shot at, but was never succussfully shot down, it
is an impressive record.
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Kevin Handy
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 2:46 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: Re: Columbia
Ed Tillman wrote:
...for that matter, only 2 complete craft/crew
losses for the shuttle
program in over 20 years; and including these, only *3* complete
craft/crew
losses in a space program that's run for
nearly 35 years? That's still
a
damned good record in anyone's book,
regardless of what the detractors
may
say... Name me an aircraft or series of aircraft
who can make the
same
SR-71 Blackbird
>claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
>closest to beating this record...)
>
>Cheers...
9:37 a.m.
SR had one crash that I'm aware of, at Kadena in the '60s... Other than
that, two still fly for NASA now... :)
Jeffrey S. Worley wrote:
>The SR71 is no airliner. I've seen it take off several times when I was
>in Japan. [...] The question I responded to was "Name me an aircraft or
series of aircraft", and the SR-71 fits into that category. [...] When you
consider that it was frequently flown over enemy territory, was constantly
being shot at, but was never succussfully shot down, it is an impressive
record.
9:34 a.m.
But S.G. only "flew" once... Try the L-1011. Only *one* crash, ever.
Now... Back to the classics... :)
Cheers!
Ed Tillman
San Antonio, Tx, USA
From: "Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)" <cisin(a)xenosoft.com>
claim.
(Noogies for the person who can name the *1* airliner that comes
closest to beating this record...)
Howard Hughe's "Spruce Goose" has NEVER crashed.
4:29 p.m.
Maybe, but then again the plane is like an Italian rifle. Fired once,
dropped once. It is practically unused. I visited the museum where it
is stored along with the QE?
It is a really really big plane. I've flown on a C5A and it was bigger
still (or so it seemed).
Regards,
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: cctalk-admin(a)classiccmp.org [mailto:cctalk-admin@classiccmp.org]
On Behalf Of Fred Cisin (XenoSoft)
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 4:26 PM
To: cctalk(a)classiccmp.org
Subject: RE: Columbia
claim. (Noogies for the person who can name the *1*
airliner that
comes
closest to beating this record...)
Howard Hughe's "Spruce Goose" has NEVER crashed.
7991
days inactive
7996
days old
34 comments
20 participants
participants (20)
-
bfranchuk＠jetnet.ab.ca -
cb＠mythtech.net -
cisin＠xenosoft.com -
computermuseum＠pandora.be -
dittman＠dittman.net -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
ETILLMAN＠satx.rr.com -
foo＠siconic.com -
hansp＠aconit.org -
jcwren＠jcwren.com -
jim＠calico.litterbox.com -
jrasite＠eoni.com -
kth＠srv.net -
lgwalker＠mts.net -
martinm＠allwest.net -
mikeford＠socal.rr.com -
msell＠ontimesupport.com -
Technoid＠30below.com -
vance＠neurotica.com -
vaxzilla＠jarai.org