“Did nobody stop to think what might happen in an emergency in space?”

[Lynn McGuire]

“Did nobody stop to think what might happen in an emergency in space?”

https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/08/did-nobody-stop-to-think-what-might.html

“Following on the absurdities of the Boeing Starliner imbroglio, yet
more news about a potentially dangerous limitation.”

““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. “Both were designed to fit each unique
spacecraft.””

Oops. I suspect that SpaceX will send up a couple of new space suits on
the next supply spaceship.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:56:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire

“Did nobody stop to think what might happen in an emergency in space?”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/08/did-nobody-stop-to-think-what-might.html
“Following on the absurdities of the Boeing Starliner imbroglio, yet
more news about a potentially dangerous limitation.”
““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. “Both were designed to fit each unique
spacecraft.””
Oops. I suspect that SpaceX will send up a couple of new space suits on
the next supply spaceship.

See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:56:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
“Did nobody stop to think what might happen in an emergency in space?”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/08/did-nobody-stop-to-think-what-might.html
“Following on the absurdities of the Boeing Starliner imbroglio, yet
more news about a potentially dangerous limitation.”
““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. “Both were designed to fit each unique
spacecraft.””
Oops. I suspect that SpaceX will send up a couple of new space suits on
the next supply spaceship.

See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.

ISO ?

Lynn

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Paul S Person
On Fri, 23 Aug 2024 14:56:36 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
“Did nobody stop to think what might happen in an emergency in space?”
https://bayourenaissanceman.blogspot.com/2024/08/did-nobody-stop-to-think-what-might.html
“Following on the absurdities of the Boeing Starliner imbroglio, yet
more news about a potentially dangerous limitation.”
““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. “Both were designed to fit each unique
spacecraft.””
Oops. I suspect that SpaceX will send up a couple of new space suits on
the next supply spaceship.

See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.

ISO ?

The International Standards Organization:
<https://www.iso.org/>

I assume that this means that your firm isn't ISO-9000 certified.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 8/24/2024 2:35 PM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
...

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.

ISO ?

<https://www.iso.org/>
I assume that this means that your firm isn't ISO-9000 certified.

I thought that was what he meant but wanted to make sure of it.

Yup, we are ISO certified for a decade or so now. You know, that should
be on our website but I cannot find it.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 24 Aug 2024 21:01:26 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
...

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Paul S Person
See, /this/ is why the ISO exists.

ISO ?

<https://www.iso.org/>
I assume that this means that your firm isn't ISO-9000 certified.

I thought that was what he meant but wanted to make sure of it.

Indeed it was.

See, /this/ is why we keep having to re-invent the wheel:
standardization only occurs after disaster has struck.

Much as I dislike the way BD has filled the moat with piranha and
pulled up the drawbridge to avoid any contact with non-HDMI/HDCP
devices, they were at least smart enough to avoid having each Major
Studio coming up with its own special disc format, playable only on
its own special devices.

But, of course, this isn't the first time. Last time (that I
remember), NASA finally figured out that, if it's going to work with
European agencies, it's going to have to use metric. Not that I'm any
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agree
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.

Post by Lynn McGuire
Yup, we are ISO certified for a decade or so now. You know, that should
be on our website but I cannot find it.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

On 26/08/2024 06:08, Paul S Person wrote:
[SNIP]

Post by Paul S Person
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agree
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.

Are you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?

I'll help you, it's three: Liberia, Myanmar, and the USA.

I wouldn't like being lumped in with Myanmar...

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:03:35 +1000, "Gary R. Schmidt"

Post by Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP]

Post by Paul S Person
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agree
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.

Are you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?
I'll help you, it's three: Liberia, Myanmar, and the USA.
I wouldn't like being lumped in with Myanmar...

Perhaps that is a sign of hope for Myanmar, who can say?

And French domination of how things are measured is ... meaningless.

Literally. I may not be a fan of metric, but I don't run screaming
from the room when I encounter it either.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP]

Post by Paul S Person
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agree
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.

Are you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?
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....
--scott

[James Nicoll]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP]

Post by Paul S Person
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agree
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.

Are you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?
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....

Canada switched to metric in the 1970s because the US was going to
and we didn't want the fuss of having a different measuring system
from our largest trading partner. In any case, what unit of measurement
gets used is context dependent. Could be Imperial--not quite the same
as US--metric, some archaic unit, time used to measure distance, and
so on.

[Graham]

Post by Scott Dorsey
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.

We are different here, but not to that extent. Distances and speed
limits on road signs are in miles throughout the UK. I'd support
changing, but it doesn't seem to be on the political agenda at the moment.


G.

[Graham]

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

You'll have noticed that it didn't work on that occasion. As I was
typing it, it went from line to line automagically, but didn't in
the posted version.


G.

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?

Cheers - Jaime

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my
lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy. But I will
write more Fortran next Tuesday. Converting it all to C++ cannot come
soon enough.

Lynn

[D]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my lifetime.
If I never write another line I will be happy. But I will write more Fortran
next Tuesday. Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids
write rust these days!

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my
lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will
write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come
soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids
write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial. I have actually
considered it. Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.

Lynn

[D]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my
lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will write
more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon
enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids
write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial. I have actually considered
it. Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.
Lynn

Ahh, I see. Thank you very much, had no idea. =)

[Michael F. Stemper]

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial.  I have actually considered it.  Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.

I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Michael F. Stemper
I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

Bell Labs wrote an f2c converter back in the eighties and it worked okay.
For years it was used as a front end to gcc in order to make the g77
compiler, which worked most of the time for clean fortran 77 code.
It was not wonderful and it was not optimal but it was functional.

The nice thing about fortran is that there's a lot less to go wrong than
with C++. Engineers should not be allowed to touch pointers. Nobody should
ever use null-terminated strings; that was just a bad idea initially. You
can still goober things up by writing past array bounds and passing
subroutine and function parameters improperly but at least we have some
tools to find these quickly and easily.

f90 has a lot of very cool matrix functions and operators which make
compilation on a vector machine (like a GPU) easier, and make for much
more readable matrix code too. I have trouble convincing people to use these
however.
--scott

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Michael F. Stemper
I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

Bell Labs wrote an f2c converter back in the eighties and it worked okay.
For years it was used as a front end to gcc in order to make the g77
compiler, which worked most of the time for clean fortran 77 code.
It was not wonderful and it was not optimal but it was functional.
The nice thing about fortran is that there's a lot less to go wrong than
with C++. Engineers should not be allowed to touch pointers. Nobody should
ever use null-terminated strings; that was just a bad idea initially. You
can still goober things up by writing past array bounds and passing
subroutine and function parameters improperly but at least we have some
tools to find these quickly and easily.
f90 has a lot of very cool matrix functions and operators which make
compilation on a vector machine (like a GPU) easier, and make for much
more readable matrix code too. I have trouble convincing people to use these
however.
--scott

I have converted F2C into my own F2CPP with quite a few changes for code
readability and semi automated usage of std::string. The fortran reads
and writes are a complete disaster so I am rewriting these by hand. I
have converted almost 100K lines of F77 to C++ so far, all working.
750K lines to go.

I would never rewrite our matrix code algorithms which were originally
written in F66. There is too much error trapping and the wisdom /hard
experience of many, many, many fixes in it.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 07:57:48 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial.  I have actually considered it.  Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.

I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

If (this is purely hypothetical) you are moving to a C++ compiler that
has no corresponding FORTRAN compiler, then converting FORTRAN to C++
would make a /lot/ of sense.

As to the object-oriented capabilities of C++, don't tell anyone, but
it is perfectly possible to write C++ code that is little more than "C
plus classes" (and, of course, enums that are types and a few other
advantages). You don't actually have to do heavy-duty OOP to use C++.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 07:57:48 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial.  I have actually considered it.  Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.

I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

If (this is purely hypothetical) you are moving to a C++ compiler that
has no corresponding FORTRAN compiler, then converting FORTRAN to C++
would make a /lot/ of sense.
As to the object-oriented capabilities of C++, don't tell anyone, but
it is perfectly possible to write C++ code that is little more than "C
plus classes" (and, of course, enums that are types and a few other
advantages). You don't actually have to do heavy-duty OOP to use C++.

Fortran is transitioning from a serious business language to a hobbyist
language. There are billions of lines of software written in F66 and
F77 that are very slowly being converted to C++. Or Rust. Or Python. Etc.

BTW, in some senses, C++ is just a better C. And the STL (Standard
Template Library) is simply amazing.

Lynn

[vallor]

On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 07:57:48 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

1234567890 2234567890 3234567890 4234567890 5234567890 6234567890
7234567890 8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my
lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will
write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot
come soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids
write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial.  I have actually
considered it.  Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.

I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

f2c(1) can convert to C++.

However, I suspect it isn't that easy to end up with working code.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 2 Sep 2024 07:57:48 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"

Post by Michael F. Stemper

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids write rust these days!

Converting Fortran or C++ to Rust is non trivial.  I have actually considered it.  Shoot, converting Fortran to C++ is non trivial.

I would guess that a straight translation of Fortran to C++ could be
automated. However, there doesn't seem to be any point in it unless
you're going to make use of the object-oriented capabilities of C++.
Then, of course, you're looking at a complete refactoring, which would,
indeed, be non-trivial.

I'm not too keen on trusting an automated translation of what I think
Lynn has said is a couple of million lines of code
I had to clean up after an automated conversion of something much
smaller and it wasn't fun

The current calculation engine compiles to three Win32 DLLs and four
Win32 EXEs. There is 850,000 lines of F77 code and 50,000 lines of C++
code.

The Windows Win32 user interface is 450,000 lines of C++ that compiles
to a single Win32 EXE. The Excel transfer tool is about 70,000 lines of
C++ that compiles to a single Win32 EXE. The input manager tool is
about 10,000 lines of C++ that compiles to a single Win32 EXE. The
license manager is 20,000 lines of C++ that compiles to a single Win32 EXE.

Lynn

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my
lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will
write more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come
soon enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids
write rust these days!

And I am not a kid, much less a cool kid.

Lynn

[D]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by D

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Jaimie Vandenbergh

Post by Graham

Post by Graham
1234567890
2234567890
3234567890
4234567890
5234567890
6234567890
7234567890
8234567890
I'll take the bait. Please explain your signature.

Nothing exciting, I'm afraid. 80 characters.

Should be 72, Shirley?
     Cheers - Jaime

I have written a quarter of a million (SWAG) lines of Fortran in my
lifetime. If I never write another line I will be happy.  But I will write
more Fortran next Tuesday.  Converting it all to C++ cannot come soon
enough.
Lynn

Ahh... but isn't it true that C++ is only for nerds? All the cool kids
write rust these days!

And I am not a kid, much less a cool kid.
Lynn

Don't sell yourself short. Maybe not a kid, but plenty cool in my book
with the business that you have and based on what you do!

[William Hyde]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Gary R. Schmidt
[SNIP]

Post by Paul S Person
great fan of metric, but the French are certainly not going to agree
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.

Are you aware just how few countries choose to not use the metric system?
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....

Excellent! I've learned my one thing for the day!

William Hyde

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Post by Paul S Person
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

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Post by Paul S Person
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

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Post by Paul S Person
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

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.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Post by Paul S Person
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

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

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Post by Paul S Person
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

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Dorsey
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

Post by Ted Nolan <tednolan>

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Dorsey
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'.

Yep!

Post by Scott Dorsey
I remember the same thing said about Ada, a bit earlier.
pt

I think we actually had to get a Ada waiver on a few projects.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Sadly, the Soviets (and their technology) are long gone.

Also, there is a difference between two gummint agencies that are
cooperating with each other (ie, sharing data and, I suspect,
equipment samples) and two private firms competing with each other.

OTOH, if they were paid enough, I'm sure the companies involved could
come up with something.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
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.

That's why the standards a project I am involved in worked from free
drafts of the new C++ standard way back when. Some of the requirements
were incomprehensible; figuring out what (IIRC) supporting
multitasking/multithreading OS capabilities meant for our DOS
compilers was merely a puzzle. Not that we every solved it, but some
puzzles are more fun unsolved.

Post by Scott Dorsey
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.

My point, however, that real-world effective standardization of (say)
space suit couplings would have been most helpful at the present
moment, still stands.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

Lynn

[William Hyde]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

That would be 2/3 of the distance from Moscow to Kyiv.

The incursion is a few tens of kilometers.


William Hyde

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by William Hyde

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

That would be 2/3 of the distance from Moscow to Kyiv.
The incursion is a few tens of kilometers.

I suspect he confused the occupied area (approx 400 square miles)
with linear distance.

Loading Image...

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

Apparently? Not Sure? or baseless speculation.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

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.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/ww3-watch-as-traditional-strategic-nuclear-deterrence-wears/

“Add to that the fact that Moscow’s ‘red lines’ have been breached one
after another – as I write Ukraine is striking Russian territory with
NATO weapons like there’s no tomorrow – and we can see how the situation
has impossibly escalated.”

“It now has arisen that Russia has trained its navy to target sites deep
inside Europe with nuclear-capable missiles in a potential – by now
virtually certain – conflict with Nato”

“Moscow had rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons in the early stages
of a conflict with a major world power, […] planning for a series of
overwhelming strikes across western Europe.”

“You read it right – EARLY STAGES: not using strikes as a last measure,
but as an early salvo.”

I do not know what the leaders of NATO are thinking but I hope that they
die in the first salvo of the CANNED SUNSHINE.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

Like here:

https://thebulletin.org/premium/2024-03/russian-nuclear-weapons-2024/

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire
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.

I don't know how seriously to take this. Its similar to this
report on the Financial Times:

https://www.ft.com/content/f18e6e1f-5c3d-4554-aee5-50a730b306b7

The "pink 'un" used to be good, but I haven't read it for decades.

The Russians claim the documents are bogus. Take that as you will.

Russia has a published nuclear doctrine, specifying under what
circumstances it will employ nuclear weapons, and nothing
happening is even near that

https://apnews.com/article/4f1772d79852e63ad9338ac557e009f1

Its certainly not impossible that it could be revised.

Hopefully, we'll never find out. My best hope is for an
internal collapse of the Putin regime.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:33:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

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.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/ww3-watch-as-traditional-strategic-nuclear-deterrence-wears/
“Add to that the fact that Moscow’s ‘red lines’ have been breached one
after another – as I write Ukraine is striking Russian territory with
NATO weapons like there’s no tomorrow – and we can see how the situation
has impossibly escalated.”
“It now has arisen that Russia has trained its navy to target sites deep
inside Europe with nuclear-capable missiles in a potential – by now
virtually certain – conflict with Nato”
“Moscow had rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons in the early stages
of a conflict with a major world power, […] planning for a series of
overwhelming strikes across western Europe.”
“You read it right – EARLY STAGES: not using strikes as a last measure,
but as an early salvo.”
I do not know what the leaders of NATO are thinking but I hope that they
die in the first salvo of the CANNED SUNSHINE.

There's nothing really new here.

This was the Soviet strategy for conquering Europe in the 70s/80s:
first whack the heck of them with nukes and then move right in.

The REFORGER depots (remember them?) were prime targets.

[Kevrob]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:33:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

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.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/ww3-watch-as-traditional-strategic-nuclear-deterrence-wears/
“Add to that the fact that Moscow’s ‘red lines’ have been breached one
after another – as I write Ukraine is striking Russian territory with
NATO weapons like there’s no tomorrow – and we can see how the situation
has impossibly escalated.”
“It now has arisen that Russia has trained its navy to target sites deep
inside Europe with nuclear-capable missiles in a potential – by now
virtually certain – conflict with Nato”
“Moscow had rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons in the early stages
of a conflict with a major world power, […] planning for a series of
overwhelming strikes across western Europe.”
“You read it right – EARLY STAGES: not using strikes as a last measure,
but as an early salvo.”
I do not know what the leaders of NATO are thinking but I hope that they
die in the first salvo of the CANNED SUNSHINE.

There's nothing really new here.
first whack the heck of them with nukes and then move right in.
The REFORGER depots (remember them?) were prime targets.

This all reminds me of Hackett's _Third World War_ and Clancy's
_ Red Storm Rising_.

https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/hackett-third-world-war/

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 18:33:53 -0500, Lynn McGuire

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

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.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/ww3-watch-as-traditional-strategic-nuclear-deterrence-wears/
“Add to that the fact that Moscow’s ‘red lines’ have been breached one
after another – as I write Ukraine is striking Russian territory with
NATO weapons like there’s no tomorrow – and we can see how the situation
has impossibly escalated.”
“It now has arisen that Russia has trained its navy to target sites deep
inside Europe with nuclear-capable missiles in a potential – by now
virtually certain – conflict with Nato”
“Moscow had rehearsed using tactical nuclear weapons in the early stages
of a conflict with a major world power, […] planning for a series of
overwhelming strikes across western Europe.”
“You read it right – EARLY STAGES: not using strikes as a last measure,
but as an early salvo.”
I do not know what the leaders of NATO are thinking but I hope that they
die in the first salvo of the CANNED SUNSHINE.

There's nothing really new here.
first whack the heck of them with nukes and then move right in.
The REFORGER depots (remember them?) were prime targets.

This all reminds me of Hackett's _Third World War_ and Clancy's
_ Red Storm Rising_.
https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/hackett-third-world-war/

That was pretty much common knowledge among those interested
(professionally or otherwise) in the topic.

They never tried it. Perhaps they wondered the same thing NATO did:
how an army of draftees whose /entire political indoctrination/ was
that they were being trained and stationed out of the USSR to /defend
against a NATO attack/ would react if told to attack rather than
defend.

Not to mention how the same draftees, given how they were treated,
might behave if actually given ammunition for their weapons: attack
NATO or shoot all the officers/NCOs they could find and head back
home?

Something it is just as well we never found out.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
before:

just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same

And I agree with others that we really don't want to find out.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same
And I agree with others that we really don't want to find out.

Submit, then.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:44:46 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same
And I agree with others that we really don't want to find out.

Submit, then.

I don't think so. Putin's may or may not work, but I suspect ours do,
and Putin knows it. He can't save Holy Mother Russia by provoking us
to retaliate, and he won't rule anything then either.

He's limited by his non-military background and KGB
training/experience. Plus any physical deterioration and/or mental
decline from the last several years.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:44:46 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same
And I agree with others that we really don't want to find out.

Submit, then.

I don't think so. Putin's may or may not work, but I suspect ours do,
and Putin knows it. He can't save Holy Mother Russia by provoking us
to retaliate, and he won't rule anything then either.
He's limited by his non-military background and KGB
training/experience. Plus any physical deterioration and/or mental
decline from the last several years.

Today (Wednesday the 28th) I'm seeing numerous credible sources
reporting that Russia is 'adjusting' its nuclear doctrine.

What too, I'm not sure. To what extent this is just more sabre
rattling, I'm not sure either.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 12:28:41 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:44:46 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same
And I agree with others that we really don't want to find out.

Submit, then.

I don't think so. Putin's may or may not work, but I suspect ours do,
and Putin knows it. He can't save Holy Mother Russia by provoking us
to retaliate, and he won't rule anything then either.
He's limited by his non-military background and KGB
training/experience. Plus any physical deterioration and/or mental
decline from the last several years.

Today (Wednesday the 28th) I'm seeing numerous credible sources
reporting that Russia is 'adjusting' its nuclear doctrine.
What too, I'm not sure. To what extent this is just more sabre
rattling, I'm not sure either.

IIR their previous doctrine correctly, I am surprised Kiev wasn't
nuked the moment the first boot touched the ground in undisputedly
Russian territory. Wasn't that supposed to be the final red line?

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 12:28:41 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Paul S Person
On Wed, 28 Aug 2024 01:44:46 +0100, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same
And I agree with others that we really don't want to find out.

Submit, then.

I don't think so. Putin's may or may not work, but I suspect ours do,
and Putin knows it. He can't save Holy Mother Russia by provoking us
to retaliate, and he won't rule anything then either.
He's limited by his non-military background and KGB
training/experience. Plus any physical deterioration and/or mental
decline from the last several years.

Today (Wednesday the 28th) I'm seeing numerous credible sources
reporting that Russia is 'adjusting' its nuclear doctrine.
What too, I'm not sure. To what extent this is just more sabre
rattling, I'm not sure either.

IIR their previous doctrine correctly, I am surprised Kiev wasn't
nuked the moment the first boot touched the ground in undisputedly
Russian territory. Wasn't that supposed to be the final red line?

No. It would take an 'existential threat to the Russian Union'.

100 square miles in an unimportant part of the border doesn't cut it.

pt

[Mad Hamish]

On Tue, 27 Aug 2024 09:26:14 -0700, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 17:36:25 -0400, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

This is true, and I think I should repeat something I have pointed out
just because Putin let his Army and Navy decline doesn't mean he let
his Strategic Missile Forces do the same

I believe there's a fair amount of experts that say that part of the
reason the armed forced did decline was the decision to prioritize
keeping the nukes in shape

Of course a lot of experts also said Russia would roll over Ukraine in
a couple of weeks...

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

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.

They may use them (and lose them) but do they understand them well
enough to pair their spacecraft with ours?

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

For Apollo-Soyuz, the Soviets made up some adaptor boxes that went =

from =3D

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey
the

American space suit connections to the Russian ones (as well as the =3D

adaptor

ring to connect the two capsules). I am surprised this is not a =3D

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.

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.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey

For Apollo-Soyuz, the Soviets made up some adaptor boxes that went =

from =3D

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Scott Dorsey
the

American space suit connections to the Russian ones (as well as the =3D

adaptor

ring to connect the two capsules). I am surprised this is not a =3D

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.

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.

pt

[Torbjorn Lindgren]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

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).

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Torbjorn Lindgren

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

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).

Thanks!

pt

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Torbjorn Lindgren

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person

Post by Scott Lurndal
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.

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.

Lynn

[Torbjorn Lindgren]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Torbjorn Lindgren

Post by Cryptoengineer
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.

This is insurance premium for satellites that the satellite owner
pays, not the rocket. A bit of short-hand for "satellites launched
on".

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.

Note that the launch provider is (always?) pretty much only on the
hook for a replacement launch or what they were paid if something goes
wrong under standard launch contracts, NOT the value of the satellite.

Arguably SpaceX is a bit more exposed than others since they want the
first stage back so it can be reused, but the reality is that with an
estimated internal first stage cost of $20-25M they'd still make money
even if the didn't reuse anything! The biggest limitation to them from
that would actually be that they couldn't launch nearly as many
(production limit).

But the main point was that insurance cost for a satellite is
basically a percentage of the replacement cost, and THAT percentage is
heavily connected to the launch vehicle reliability since that's where
most of the mishaps happen. And Soyuz percentage was significantly
higher than Falcon 9, though not as high as some other options.

Not ALL of failures happen during launch so it's not 100% correlated
to "estimated chance of launch failure" but it's by far the biggest
component.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Torbjorn Lindgren
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.

ObSF: C.M. Kornbluth, _The Rocket of 1955_.
--scott