🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ewright.724699264@convex.convex.com> ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes:
>In <ggm2ljr@rpi.edu> strider@clotho.acm.rpi.edu (Greg Moore) writes:
>
>
>>	I think we differ big-time when it comes to DC-1.  Allen seems
>>to me to be saying, "Things will work out, and this is how it will be."
>>I think that is the attitude that bothers me the most.  That is the
>>exact same thign that was said with the Shuttle.  
>
>What bothers me is the attitude that, "If NASA couldn't do it,
>nobody can."
>
	That's not exactly what I said.  But of course you cut out the
part where I went on to say that I think DC-X has a much better
chance.  I'm simply saying that don't belive what anyone tells you
no matter who it is, NASA, SDIO, or MacDac, etc.  Look for the
proof in the pudding.

>Okay, NASA built one airplane, the Shuttle, that doesn't work
>very well.
>
	Doesn't work very well, or work as designed.  Granted, it
ain't flying 26 tiems a year or anything like that.  But what it
is doing, it is doing well.  Perhaps DC-1 can do it better.  I think
if even half of the promises of DC-X are truue, DC-1 can do a lot
better.  But, look for the proof.

>Boeing, Lockheed, McDonnell Douglas, and other companies quite
>regularly build airplanes as advanced and complex as the Space
>Shuttle (the Shuttle has 6 main computers, the B-757 has over
>200) that work quite well.
>
	I wonder how you count computers.  Do you count the
multiplex-deplexers on the shuttle, the sensor units and more?
I doubt that the B-757 has 200 comptuers that control the entire
plane.  I do believe it has 200 where various ones control various
parts of the plane.  That's two different things.

>This does not suggest, to me, that NASA is so all-efficient
>and omnicompetent that if they can't do it, no one can. 
>
	Of course, if you set up the strawman, you can cut him down.
  
>If anything, it suggests the project will work as long as
>you keep NASA the hell away from it.
>
	"Objection honor, conclusion based on evidence not included."
Not that I disagree, simply that your conclusion does not follow from
above.