Heinlein's ss "Project Nightmare".

[a425couple]

Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of
short stories. They include "Project Nightmare".

So the last couple of years we have faced increasing
concern about North Korea's development of Atomic
Bombs and their threats to use them. Tricky situation
with no easy solution visible. Then the most recent early
missile failure -----, reminded me of "Project Nightmare".

In that story:
"Russian Embasy today handed State ultimatum --
Demands USA convert to 'peoples republic'----
Note claims major US cities (list separate) are
mined with Atomic Bombs which they threaten
to set off by radio if terms are not met by ---"

Good citizens with telekinetic ability, get us through
that threat, and then move on to really adjust the threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare
Are hackers doing what Heinlein had telekinetics do?
Certainly computers do a considerable portion of
arming and fusing a warhead.
Could a hacker set off a different country's weapon????

[David Johnston]

No. That's impossible. Missiles are not connected to the web.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in
news:od2u0t$gml$1...@dont-email.me:

If you believe that all computer attacks must go through the web,
and only the web, you're as stupid as you look.

There is, in fact, considerably speculation that North Korea's
missile program, based on Soviet designs that had a 13% failure
rate, fails 88% of the time because of various cyber-attacks.
Iran's nuclear program was sabotages with printer firmware that
destroyed centrifuges. Russia compromised NATO with infeced USB
drives. And so on.

--
Terry Austin

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

[MajorOz]

That's not what he said.

...and:

Minuteman canNOT be triggered by hackers.

Dunno 'bout our nuke subs, but speculate similar security.

Air delivered nuke bombs are (mostly) dumb bombs

T'hawks cannot be fucked with.

.....next.....

[David Mitchell]

Yet. I apologise in advance for not being able to provide details*; but
I read fairly recently that some branch of the US armed forces was
mooting that very thing.

We can all only hope that such mind-melting stupidity will be filtered
out by some kind of review.

*: Any kind of search for "missile" at the moment is just overwhelmed by
recent events.

[a425couple]

"David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in...

> a425couple wrote:
>> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of short
>> stories. They include "Project Nightmare".
>> So the last couple of years we have faced increasing concern about North

>> Korea's development of Atomic Bombs and their threats to use them.----

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare
>> Are hackers doing what Heinlein had telekinetics do? Certainly computers
>> do a considerable portion of arming and fusing a warhead. Could a hacker
>> set off a different country's weapon????
>
> No. That's impossible. Missiles are not connected to the web.

Decades ago, I had a Apple II computer. I wrote a program
for it to easily compute out, my car's gas milage (into miles per gallon).
That was a quite simple and short program, that could at a glance
be checked out and verified it had no "bugs" in it.

Everything I've seen lately has many, many lines of code it it.
Very few 'programs' are entirely unique and never been
touched by any 'outside' computer.
So, just as those centrifuges were caused to fail,
(even though, aparently, not connected to the web)
other items could also be caused to fail, in a variety of ways
and times.

Please see David Mitchell's 4/18 post.

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:od2n1...@news3.newsguy.com...

STORY SPOILER

IMHO = Quite interesting finish.
So, all the work of the telekinetic team got focused on
finding all the A-bombs that Russia had snuck into the US.
They kept all but one (poor Cleveland!! always picked on!)
from being set off.
Now they get asked to focus their attention on another
mission, could they find the Russian A-bombs in Russia and
start setting them off there, while they were still far away??
She gets a far away look, and asks for a quiet room and a
large pot of tea!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests_of_North_Korea

[Mark Bestley]

a425couple <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in...
> > a425couple wrote:
> >> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of short
> >> stories. They include "Project Nightmare".
> >> So the last couple of years we have faced increasing concern about North
> >> Korea's development of Atomic Bombs and their threats to use them.----
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare
> >> Are hackers doing what Heinlein had telekinetics do? Certainly computers
> >> do a considerable portion of arming and fusing a warhead. Could a hacker
> >> set off a different country's weapon????
> >
> > No. That's impossible. Missiles are not connected to the web.
>
> Decades ago, I had a Apple II computer. I wrote a program
> for it to easily compute out, my car's gas milage (into miles per gallon).
> That was a quite simple and short program, that could at a glance
> be checked out and verified it had no "bugs" in it.

But if that program ran on a Pentium (only 10 years later) could would
have had a bug even though your code was correct.

How do you know that the Apple CPU or hardware or BASIC interpreter had
no bugs?

So even then not everythiong was verifiable

>
> Everything I've seen lately has many, many lines of code it it.
> Very few 'programs' are entirely unique and never been
> touched by any 'outside' computer.
> So, just as those centrifuges were caused to fail,
> (even though, aparently, not connected to the web)
> other items could also be caused to fail, in a variety of ways
> and times.
>
> Please see David Mitchell's 4/18 post.

--
Mark

[Scott Lurndal]

I would have once made the same statement about powerplants.

logic != reality

[a425couple]

"MajorOz" <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in

Ahhhh, excuse me Major Sir,
but, I hope the Major knows he is posting a response only
on the fan heinlein group, to posters who probably never
look here.
But, that is all, OK with me.

So, did you ever read Arthur Clarke's "The Hammer of God" ?

[MajorOz]

On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 at 4:36:04 PM UTC-5, a425couple wrote:
> "MajorOz" <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> > Minuteman canNOT be triggered by hackers.
> > Dunno 'bout our nuke subs, but speculate similar security.
> > Air delivered nuke bombs are (mostly) dumb bombs
> > T'hawks cannot be fucked with.
> > .....next.....
>
> Ahhhh, excuse me Major Sir,
> but, I hope the Major knows he is posting a response only
> on the fan heinlein group, to posters who probably never
> look here.

?

> So, did you ever read Arthur Clarke's "The Hammer of God" ?

Vaguely recall starting it. ACC has ordinarily been too pretentious for me.

[Mike Van Pelt]

In article <XnsA75A6EB78AD...@69.16.179.42>,

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>There is, in fact, considerably speculation that North Korea's
>missile program, based on Soviet designs that had a 13% failure
>rate, fails 88% of the time because of various cyber-attacks.

Or, perhaps, whenever anything does not work completely perfectly,
everyone involved is summarily executed, which tends to make it
difficult to learn from one's mistakes. Also, the smart people
tend to want to Be Someplace Else.

--
"The urge to save humanity is almost | Mike Van Pelt
always a false front for the urge to rule." | mvp at calweb.com
-- H.L. Mencken | KE6BVH

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 4/18/2017 4:42 PM, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <XnsA75A6EB78AD...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There is, in fact, considerably speculation that North Korea's
>> missile program, based on Soviet designs that had a 13% failure
>> rate, fails 88% of the time because of various cyber-attacks.
>
> Or, perhaps, whenever anything does not work completely perfectly,
> everyone involved is summarily executed, which tends to make it
> difficult to learn from one's mistakes. Also, the smart people
> tend to want to Be Someplace Else.
>

There is also the "based on Soviet designs". North Korea is not using
unmodified Soviet designs. They are tinkering with them trying to make
them do things they weren't intended to.

--
Some days you just don't have enough middle fingers!

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

m...@web1.calweb.com (Mike Van Pelt) wrote in news:cvxJA.12359
$KO2....@fx36.iad:

> In article <XnsA75A6EB78AD...@69.16.179.42>,
> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>There is, in fact, considerably speculation that North Korea's
>>missile program, based on Soviet designs that had a 13% failure
>>rate, fails 88% of the time because of various cyber-attacks.
>
> Or, perhaps, whenever anything does not work completely perfectly,
> everyone involved is summarily executed, which tends to make it
> difficult to learn from one's mistakes. Also, the smart people
> tend to want to Be Someplace Else.
>

One does wonder. I am increasinly of the opinion, however, the Kim is
not, and has never been, in control of North Korea. I doubt he is
aware of this, but I am more and more inclined to think his military
leadership has real control. And the executions we know about are the
result of losing an internal power stuggle within their ranks.

This does not, of course, conflict with your alternate theory.

It is entirely possible there's a family sized helping of both.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in
news:od6a71$r7s$1...@dont-email.me:

Even so, with such an extreme failure rate, either they have
extraordinarily incompetent rocket scientists, or there's some other
factor(s) at work.

[a425couple]

"MajorOz" <ozm...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:
>> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in

Care to explain what triggers the explosion of the
"Air delivered nuke bombs" ?

[MajorOz]

Well.......it ain't an iPhone.

It's either a barometric sensor (for above ground), impact (for at ground), or internal timer (for below ground).

Nary a microwave in the bunch.

[a425couple]

> Nary a microwave in the bunch.

So, you are believing a modern 'barometric sensor'
to fire the fuze, is entirely mechanicly operated?

> or internal timer (for below ground).

So, you are thinking an old fashoned mechanical alarm clock?
Nothing like a currently produced electronic one?
And, absolutely no overrides for the scientists on the surface?

Wow! Just think of the excitement. The North Koreans just start
to lower it down the 1,300 foot shaft, and the cable snags and
it can not be moved, either up or down!!!
One hour until BOOM, and it's just 50' below the surface.
"May you live in interesting times!"

[a425couple]

"Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy" <taus...@gmail.com> wrote in...

> David Johnston <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in

Yes. It appears to be a variety of ways for mischief to be done.
Elsewhere, someone not wishing to post here,
did some exchanges with me. I'll pick up:

>> >> If you believe that all computer attacks must go through the web,
>> >> and only the web, you're as stupid as you look.
>> >

>> > That's not what he said.
>> > ...and:
>> > Minuteman canNOT be triggered by hackers.
>> > Dunno 'bout our nuke subs, but speculate similar security.
>> > Air delivered nuke bombs are (mostly) dumb bombs
>>
>> Care to explain what triggers the explosion of the
>> "Air delivered nuke bombs" ?
>
> Well.......it ain't an iPhone.
>
> It's either a barometric sensor (for above ground>
> Nary a microwave in the bunch.

So, you are believing a modern 'barometric sensor'

to fire the fuze, is entirely mechanically * operated?

> or internal timer (for below ground).

So, you are thinking an old fashoned mechanical alarm clock?
Nothing like a currently produced electronic one?
And, absolutely no overrides for the scientists on the surface?

Wow! Just think of the excitement. The North Koreans just start
to lower it down the 1,300 foot shaft, and the cable snags and
it can not be moved, either up or down!!!
One hour until BOOM, and it's just 50' below the surface.
"May you live in interesting times!"

* meanwhile, does my use of the word "mechanical", really
eliminate anything electronic/electrical?


Definition of mechanical
1
a (1) : of or relating to machinery (see machinery 1) or tools
mechanical applications of science a mechanical genius mechanical aptitude
(2) : produced or operated by a machine or tool mechanical power a
mechanical refrigerator a mechanical saw
b : of or relating to manual operations
2
: of or relating to artisans (see artisan 1) or machinists the
mechanical trades
3
a : done as if by machine : seemingly uninfluenced by the mind or
emotions : automatic
busy in a leisurely mechanical way - Douglas Stewart
b : of or relating to technicalities or petty matters
nor was any capacity shown for anything above a mechanical handling of
the matter - H. O. Taylor
4
a : relating to, governed by, or in accordance with the principles of
mechanics mechanical energy
b : relating to the quantitative relations of force and matter mechanical
pressure of wind on a tower
5
: caused by, resulting from, or relating to a process that involves a
purely physical as opposed to a chemical or biological change or process -
mechanical erosion of rock

Well, #5 does specify no "chemical' or 'biological', but it does not
specificly say no electrical pulses.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

The is pretty much incoherent. The only thing I can deduce from it
is that you're as stupid as you look.

And you look *very* stupid.

HTH. HAND.

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:od8mc...@news3.newsguy.com:

[MajorOz]

On Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 2:00:47 PM UTC-5, a425couple wrote:

> So.....

...and then:

> So.....

Whenever someone uses "so" in an attempt to summarize someone ELSE's statement, you can bet the ranch that it will be distorted......as it is here.

Then, of course, there is....

> Wow!

Preceding a comic book scenario.


If you wish to seriously discuss nukes, I pass through here now and then. Having worked with and for the JSTPS (google is your friend), I might have something interesting.....or dull, depending on interest levels.


cheers,

oz

(my sig here pushing 20 years, if you count we started on AOL)

[lal_truckee]

On 4/19/17 11:59 AM, a425couple wrote:
>
> Wow! Just think of the excitement. The North Koreans just start to
> lower it down the 1,300 foot shaft, and the cable snags and it can not
> be moved, either up or down!!! One hour until BOOM, and it's just 50'
> below the surface. "May you live in interesting times!"

No problemo. Jack Ryan arrives in the lead Black Escalade (of a dozen
responding), leaps to the cable, slides down with his pry-bar and
releases the snag at which point he Slim Pickens the rest of the way to
glory.

BTW, what makes you all believe "underground" means vertical placement -
North Korean terrain suggests horizontal as more likely.

[Loupgarous]

Depends. If I were making a nuclear explosive device, I'd put the arming circuits and detonator wiring in a Faraday cage (a metal box with no openings to the outside that didn't end in shielded connectors).

Even the wires from the arming capacitors to the explosive lens detonators would be coaxial cable with the external conductor jacket at ground potential with the rest of the Faraday cage. Just on general principles, and I would not connect it to the Internet in any fashion. No cell phone, no nothing.

That would seem to eliminate "hacking" in the sense of "unauthorized access to someone else's electronics". But even a Faraday cage, hit with a strong enough, narrow enough microwave pulse, might not prevent at least an asymmetric detonation of the explosive lenses. Any nuclear yield from such a detonation would be slight (as nuclear weapons go, that is).

For a professionally-made, "one-point safe" military design from the US, UK, France or Russia, the theoretical limit to an detonation that isn't intended to happen is the same explosion you'd get from 4 kilograms (just under nine pounds) of TNT. A big boom - but we're talking about blowing a house or two up. Not a city.

Fighter aircraft are beginning to get the sort of AESA radar that could fry another fighter's radar. That could also be enough, properly aimed, to cook off someone else's nuclear weapon, especially if the shielding around the arming circuits is poor by military nuclear weapon standards.

North Korea's also vulnerable on both sides to an attack by AEGIS destroyer and guided missile frigate radar, which might be powerful and focused enough to trigger or destroy a carelessly-constructed nuclear weapon.

[MajorOz]

On Thursday, April 20, 2017 at 7:41:11 PM UTC-5, Loupgarous wrote:

....some good, informative stuff


Hey, Loup......long time no "see".

Over the winter, we stopped in your neighborhood to have some grilled oysters.

And then, a couple hundred miles closer to the Gulf, we had some more.

....yum.....

[jeanet...@gmail.com]

I just read PHENOMENA by Annie Jacobsen. It brought Project Nightmare to mind. I wondered how much RAH knew about the military research that was being done. I don't know that I would recommend the book unless a person was interested in ESP studies.

Jeanette

[a425couple]

<jeanet...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

> a425couple wrote:
>> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of
>> short stories. They include "Project Nightmare".
>> So the last couple of years we have faced increasing
>> concern about North Korea's development of Atomic
>> Bombs and their threats to use them. Tricky situation
>> with no easy solution visible. Then the most recent early
>> missile failure -----, reminded me of "Project Nightmare".

>> In that story: ----

>> Good citizens with telekinetic ability, get us through
>> that threat, and then move on to really adjust the threat.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare
>

> I just read PHENOMENA by Annie Jacobsen.

- It brought Project Nightmare to mind. I wondered how much RAH
- knew about the military research that was being done. I don't know
- that I would recommend the book unless a person was interested in
- ESP studies.
> Jeanette

Yes, "Phenomena" could certainly bring "Project Nightmare" to mind.

As I've read, Heinlein had enough influential contacts,
that he was probably fairly aware of military research
into the 1980s.

I just googled - Robert Heinlein & Curtis LeMay
and found a discussion here from 7 years ago.
http://alt.fan.heinlein.narkive.com/HIP0sKqM/heinlein-curtis-lemay
" Bill Patterson
They were both on the National Air Power Council together for years,
and Heinlein lists Le May among top ranking military figures he has
known well and worked with. "

Hmmm, I see from
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HZFB2T0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
"Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigations
into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis
by Annie Jacobsen (Author)
4.2 out of 5 stars 55 customer reviews
The definitive history of the military's decades-long investigation into
mental powers and phenomena, from the author of Pulitzer Prize finalist
The Pentagon's Brain and international bestseller Area 51.
This is a book about a team of scientists and psychics with top secret
clearances."

"Compelling....This is an excellent read that gives evidence on both sides
of the argument that extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis exist,
complementing -----. Highly recommended for those interested in the military
and the paranormal."

But WOW! The reviews sure have some saying Jacobsen is
a great storyteller,,, but misleads greatly.

- a highly distorted and selective presentation concerning this government
- program. By Russell Targ on March 29, 2017

- Possibly a great screenplay, but not a definitive history
- By Fred Rosenthal on March 30, 2017

An interesting read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Targ

[a425couple]

"a425couple" <a425c...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...

> <jeanet...@gmail.com> wrote in message...
>> a425couple wrote:
>>> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of

>>> short stories. They include "Project Nightmare". ---

>>> Good citizens with telekinetic ability, get us through
>>> that threat, and then move on to really adjust the threat.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare
>>
>> I just read PHENOMENA by Annie Jacobsen.
> - It brought Project Nightmare to mind. I wondered how much RAH
> - knew about the military research that was being done. I don't know
> - that I would recommend the book unless a person was interested in
> - ESP studies.
>> Jeanette
>
> Yes, "Phenomena" could certainly bring "Project Nightmare" to mind.
>

> Hmmm, I see from
> https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01HZFB2T0/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
> "Phenomena: The Secret History of the U.S. Government's Investigations
> into Extrasensory Perception and Psychokinesis
> by Annie Jacobsen (Author)
> 4.2 out of 5 stars 55 customer reviews
> The definitive history of the military's decades-long investigation into
> mental powers and phenomena, from the author of Pulitzer Prize finalist
> The Pentagon's Brain and international bestseller Area 51.
> This is a book about a team of scientists and psychics with top secret
> clearances."
>
> "Compelling....This is an excellent read that gives evidence on both sides
> of the argument that extrasensory perception (ESP) and psychokinesis
> exist, complementing -----. Highly recommended for those interested in the
> military
> and the paranormal."
>
> But WOW! The reviews sure have some saying Jacobsen is
> a great storyteller,,, but misleads greatly.

Does Jacobsen's book seem to indicate a belief that 'remote viewing'
or ESP can reliably be done?
Do you feel that 'remote viewing' or ESP can reliably be done?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasensory_perception

Telepathy sure played a big role in many 1940's & 50's & 60's
sci-fi books including Heinlein's "Time for the Stars".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telepathy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_for_the_Stars

[jeanet...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 17, 2017 at 8:30:00 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of
> short stories. They include "Project Nightmare".
>

> So the last couple of years we have faced increasing
> concern about North Korea's development of Atomic
> Bombs and their threats to use them. Tricky situation
> with no easy solution visible. Then the most recent early
> missile failure -----, reminded me of "Project Nightmare".
>
> In that story:

> "Russian Embasy today handed State ultimatum --
> Demands USA convert to 'peoples republic'----
> Note claims major US cities (list separate) are
> mined with Atomic Bombs which they threaten

> to set off by radio if terms are not met by ---"

>
> Good citizens with telekinetic ability, get us through
> that threat, and then move on to really adjust the threat.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare

> Are hackers doing what Heinlein had telekinetics do?
> Certainly computers do a considerable portion of
> arming and fusing a warhead.
> Could a hacker set off a different country's weapon????

In answer to the question if remote viewing could reliably be done--according to Jacobsen, that is the problem. It was not reliable and was rarely repeatable so didn't fit with the requirements of the scientific method and researchers do not like that. She tells examples where remote viewing helped find people and things and how many people talk about "spidy sense". The noise to signal ratio is very high and a lot of the confirmed remote views were discovered with hindsight.

Jeanette

[Chris Zakes]

Kurt Vonnegut's "Report on the Barnhouse Effect" is also an
interesting read, relative to "Project Nightmare."

-Chris Zakes
Texas

--

GNU Terry Pratchett
Mind how you go.

[a425couple]

<jeanet...@gmail.com> wrote in message...

- a425couple wrote:
> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of

> short stories. They include "Project Nightmare". ---

> Good citizens with telekinetic ability, get us through
> that threat, and then move on to really adjust the threat.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare

- In answer to the question if remote viewing could reliably
-be done--according to Jacobsen, that is the problem. It was
-not reliable and was rarely repeatable so didn't fit with the
-requirements of the scientific method and researchers do not
-like that. She tells examples where remote viewing helped
-find people and things and how many people talk about
-"spidy sense". The noise to signal ratio is very high and a lot
-of the confirmed remote views were discovered with hindsight.
-Jeanette

Thank you for the info.

[quietcat]

Moot.
We're not a "People's Republic" already?
Can't prove it by my observation.

[MajorOz]

....eh ?

[Loupgarous]

mmmm good stuff. I love oysters, well-cooked. Had a nice andouille and duck gumbo today. Fellow at church made it and it had the smoothest roux I ever tasted - almost like gravy.

As far as either nuclear terror or an attack by an unstable nuclear power (the Norks were lined up to proliferate to Bangladesh and Burma and it's unclear the Burmese are well and truly out of the business, they've probably got a reactor that has no power lines going to it), it'll happen.

The problem is that the nuclear weapons power parties to the Nonproliferation Treaty aren't going to disarm, ever - even though that was part of the treaty.

This gives any non-weapon state a justification to withdraw from the treaty (although they can cite overriding national interests and withdraw after returning any nuclear material they got under the treaty provisions).

Any country with large phosphate deposits probably has uranium as a co-mineral. From there, either enrich with the A.Q. Khan centrifuge or get heavy water from somewhere and make a reactor with natural uranium until you get enough plutonium to make bombs).

Nothing really prevents the "nuclear weapons club" from hitting 20 countries in a decade or two. At that point, diversion to terrorists or irrational decision-makers ordering a strike are a possibility sometime this century.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Sherlock <ma...@menot.net> wrote in
news:tr7glc9u13tpn6vn8...@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:51:55 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Even so, with such an extreme failure rate, either they have
>>extraordinarily incompetent rocket scientists, or there's some
>>other factor(s) at work.
>

> I remember well the live radio broadcast of the launch of
> Vanguard in the late 50s. Our great hope to catch up with
> Sputnik.
>
> "We have ignition. Thrust. Release. ........ It just fell
> over".

Greatly overblown. We broadcast a lot of test launches of rockets
that were still under development. Plus, Eisenhower had political
reasons to . . . not be too aggressive in getting a US satellite
into orbit before the Russkies did, and it showed (in retrospect).
>
> There is a news reel if you prefer delightful explosions.
>
> N Korea is where we were in the 50s and having the same problems
> building something with no experience. Hint, we got them
> working.

We had competent rocket scientists, and enough security to prevent
sabotage on the part of our enemies.
>
> Then again, there is the more recent Challenger.

Which is what happens when politicans listen to bureucrats instead
of scientists and engineers.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Sherlock <ma...@menot.net> wrote in
news:fr6ilc1ilff1hp6so...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 02 Jul 2017 00:54:13 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying

> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Sherlock <ma...@menot.net> wrote in
>>news:tr7glc9u13tpn6vn8...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:51:55 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying
>>> Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Even so, with such an extreme failure rate, either they have
>>>>extraordinarily incompetent rocket scientists, or there's some
>>>>other factor(s) at work.
>>>
>>> I remember well the live radio broadcast of the launch of
>>> Vanguard in the late 50s. Our great hope to catch up with
>>> Sputnik.
>>>
>>> "We have ignition. Thrust. Release. ........ It just fell
>>> over".
>>
>>Greatly overblown. We broadcast a lot of test launches of
>>rockets that were still under development. Plus, Eisenhower had
>>political reasons to . . . not be too aggressive in getting a US
>>satellite into orbit before the Russkies did, and it showed (in
>>retrospect).
>

> "Test launches" being the key words. That's exactly what NK is
> having.

We are also doing something nobody else had done before, except the
Soviets, who weren't sharing their secrets. Our rocket science has
been readily available all along.

>
>>> There is a news reel if you prefer delightful explosions.
>>>
>>> N Korea is where we were in the 50s and having the same
>>> problems building something with no experience. Hint, we got
>>> them working.
>>
>>We had competent rocket scientists, and enough security to
>>prevent sabotage on the part of our enemies.
>

> They were competent to the extent of what they had self-learned
> in perhaps a decade. Perhaps two if you want to stretch it to
> the most primitive experiments.

More like four or five, really.

> That's just where NK is now
> given there must be a decade of basic knowledge freely available
> in texts.

And yet, they still aren't getting very far.

>
>>> Then again, there is the more recent Challenger.
>>
>>Which is what happens when politicans listen to bureucrats
>>instead of scientists and engineers.
>

> Do you suppose that might happen in NK?
>
So you agree with me.

[Robert Bannister]

On 2/7/17 12:39 pm, Sherlock wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 17:51:55 -0700, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy
> <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Even so, with such an extreme failure rate, either they have
>> extraordinarily incompetent rocket scientists, or there's some other
>> factor(s) at work.
>

> I remember well the live radio broadcast of the launch of Vanguard in
> the late 50s. Our great hope to catch up with Sputnik.
>
> "We have ignition. Thrust. Release. ........ It just fell over".
>

> There is a news reel if you prefer delightful explosions.
>
> N Korea is where we were in the 50s and having the same problems
> building something with no experience. Hint, we got them working.
>

> Then again, there is the more recent Challenger.
>
>
>

I'm sure I heard an American on a news programme recently claiming that
Korean rockets failed because of the success of the USA's electronic
sabotage operations.

--
Robert B. born England a long time ago;
Western Australia since 1972

[Robert Bannister]

Of course, both sides were using German rocket scientists.

[J. Clarke]

In article <erto91...@mid.individual.net>,
robertb...@iprimus.com.au says...

A common myth. So who was the German who designed the N-1?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Robert Bannister <robertb...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in
news:erto5r...@mid.individual.net:

Of course, even if that's not true, we want the North Koreans to
believe it is.

[Robert Bannister]

Not a myth, but screwed up by Stalin's ever-changing moods. Some of the
thousands of Germans (this includes their families) who were deported to
the USSR at the end of WW2 were involved in the NII-88 project, but

"From around mid-1948, Germans at OKB-456 were also denied active
involvement in the development of a next generation engines. They were
still receiving various assignments, however were no longer able to see
a "big picture." According to German authors, Germans participated in
the development of the KS-50 and ED-140 experimental engines, which
could pave the way to the RD-110 engine -- a significantly scaled up
version of the propulsion system from the German A-4 rocket. However all
related information in the German source clearly came from a single
Russian publication, which in turn gives no credit to German engineers
for the respective work. The time frame within KS-50 engine was
developed and tested (1949) does not match the period, in which German
specialists were actively involved into development work at OKB-456,
according to the Russian sources. Therefore, the level of German
contribution in the project is still open to interpretation."

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/a4_team_moscow.html

[J. Clarke]

In article <es06co...@mid.individual.net>,

They got into orbit first, _without_ von Braun, and with a vastly more
capable booster. That suggests that they were a good deal less "screwed
up" than you seem to believe.

> Some of the
> thousands of Germans (this includes their families) who were deported to
> the USSR at the end of WW2 were involved in the NII-88 project, but

Yes, they were "involved". They weren't the rocket designers, they were
the manufacturing team. If you wanted to know how to make the tools to
make rocket engines they were your guys. If you wanted to design the
engines, that was von Braun.

> "From around mid-1948, Germans at OKB-456 were also denied active
> involvement in the development of a next generation engines. They were
> still receiving various assignments, however were no longer able to see
> a "big picture." According to German authors, Germans participated in
> the development of the KS-50 and ED-140 experimental engines, which
> could pave the way to the RD-110 engine -- a significantly scaled up
> version of the propulsion system from the German A-4 rocket.

"Participated in" is not the same as "were essential to the development
of".

> However all
> related information in the German source clearly came from a single
> Russian publication, which in turn gives no credit to German engineers
> for the respective work. The time frame within KS-50 engine was
> developed and tested (1949) does not match the period, in which German
> specialists were actively involved into development work at OKB-456,
> according to the Russian sources. Therefore, the level of German
> contribution in the project is still open to interpretation."
>
> http://www.russianspaceweb.com/a4_team_moscow.html

Bottom line, the Russians were in charge of the development and the Germans
were working on bits and pieces under Russian direction.

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

"J. Clarke" <j.clark...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:MPG.33c4b07f4...@news.eternal-september.org:

According to insiders, including Eisenhower's son, that was a
deliberte political choice on Ike's part. The conern was that if a
US satellite overflew the USSR first, the Ruskies would make a
really, really big deal about it, at a time of very, very dangerous
political tensions. But if a Soviet satellite overflew the US
first, the Russkies have publicly declared that territorial claims
do not extend to orbit. This concern was significantly increased by
the fact that the rocket we *could* have put something in orbit
with first as a strictly military satellite. Eisenhower
deliberately *chose* to let the Reds get their first, for very
sound political reasons.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 4/18/2017 10:26 AM, a425couple wrote:
> "David Johnston" <davidjo...@block.com> wrote in...

>> a425couple wrote:
>>> Heinlein's book "The Meanace From Earth" is a collection of short
>>> stories. They include "Project Nightmare".

>>> So the last couple of years we have faced increasing concern about North

>>> Korea's development of Atomic Bombs and their threats to use them.----

>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Nightmare
>>> Are hackers doing what Heinlein had telekinetics do? Certainly computers
>>> do a considerable portion of arming and fusing a warhead. Could a hacker
>>> set off a different country's weapon????
>>

>> No. That's impossible. Missiles are not connected to the web.
>

> Decades ago, I had a Apple II computer. I wrote a program for it to
> easily compute out, my car's gas milage (into miles per gallon). That
> was a quite simple and short program, that could at a glance be checked
> out and verified it had no "bugs" in it.
> Everything I've seen lately has many, many lines of code it it. Very few
> 'programs' are entirely unique and never been touched by any 'outside'
> computer. So, just as those centrifuges were caused to fail, (even
> though, aparently, not connected to the web) other items could also be
> caused to fail, in a variety of ways and times.
> Please see David Mitchell's 4/18 post.

My staff and I wrangle software that is about 1.2 million lines of F77,
C, and C++ code. More often that not, the biggest bugs are when people
use our software in an unforeseen manner.

Lynn

[Jay E. Morris]

The purpose of an application programmer is to design idiot proof
programs, the purpose of the universe is to design bigger and better idiots.

[Robert Bannister]

I forget who first said it, but there's a lot of truth in:
“Foolproof systems don't take into account the ingenuity of fools.”

[Lynn McGuire]

++;

Lynn

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Lynn McGuire <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ojesrm$sho$1...@dont-email.me:

I recall reading somewhere that at one million lines of code, every
bug fixed, on average, introduces 1.2 new bugs. The ration goes up,
the more lines of code there are.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:


>According to insiders, including Eisenhower's son, that was a
>deliberte political choice on Ike's part. The conern was that if a
>US satellite overflew the USSR first, the Ruskies would make a
>really, really big deal about it, at a time of very, very dangerous
>political tensions. But if a Soviet satellite overflew the US
>first, the Russkies have publicly declared that territorial claims
>do not extend to orbit. This concern was significantly increased by
>the fact that the rocket we *could* have put something in orbit
>with first as a strictly military satellite. Eisenhower
>deliberately *chose* to let the Reds get their first, for very
>sound political reasons.

I haven't heard that explanation of WHY they didn't make orbit first.
I recall reading an anecdote of one high-altitude rocket test where
the team organizing the test decided to change the specs a bit and
"accidentally" make orbit.

According to the anecdote, someone from HQ showed up having heard of
their plan through some grapevine or other, and was rather panicky
about forcing them to stick to their published plan.

Your explanation here makes sense.
--
We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.

[Greg Goss]

Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I recall reading somewhere that at one million lines of code, every
>bug fixed, on average, introduces 1.2 new bugs. The ration goes up,
>the more lines of code there are.

In the middle eighties, I was a mainframe programmer. Because of the
flexibility of the job control language, many job steps were focussed
around a dummy program that just was a place to hang JCL onto.

The program was originally four bytes long. IEFBR14. IEF means "IBM
supplied program" and BR14 was the command for "return from
subroutine."

Of course, the program didn't zero out register 15, (return code from
subroutine) so jobs with an overarching setting of "do this if any job
step complains" would abort on the unpredictable reg 15 code.

ZAPping reg 15 pushed the program to seven bytes. Almost as much
bug-fix as original program.

I wonder how fat IEFBR15 got by the time we stopped doing mainframe
"jobs" as the core of computing?

[Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in
news:esge2b...@mid.individual.net:

> Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>According to insiders, including Eisenhower's son, that was a
>>deliberte political choice on Ike's part. The conern was that if
>>a US satellite overflew the USSR first, the Ruskies would make a
>>really, really big deal about it, at a time of very, very
>>dangerous political tensions. But if a Soviet satellite overflew
>>the US first, the Russkies have publicly declared that
>>territorial claims do not extend to orbit. This concern was
>>significantly increased by the fact that the rocket we *could*
>>have put something in orbit with first as a strictly military
>>satellite. Eisenhower deliberately *chose* to let the Reds get
>>their first, for very sound political reasons.
>
> I haven't heard that explanation of WHY they didn't make orbit
> first.

I don't recall which PBS documentary show (maybe NOVA, or maybe
American Experience, or maybe not) it was, but every subject coverd
that I know anything about was dead on. I found it very credible.

> I recall reading an anecdote of one high-altitude rocket
> test where the team organizing the test decided to change the
> specs a bit and "accidentally" make orbit.
>
> According to the anecdote, someone from HQ showed up having
> heard of their plan through some grapevine or other, and was
> rather panicky about forcing them to stick to their published
> plan.

There was a lot of maneuvering between the military people who
*could* put something in orbit, the civilian guys who were trying
really hard to, and the White House. I don't recall ever hearing
that particular bit, and I suspect it was, at least, exaggerated
because the people involved on either end, civilian or military,
were ambitious and agressive, but were not chosen for being had to
control mavericks. (Like in _The Right Stuff_, at the end, where
it's implied that Yeager took off in the F-104 in a cowboy moment.
No, it was another in a long series of scheduled, carefully planned
test flights. Otherwise, he'd never have been allowed to fly for
the Air Force again.) Certianly, there were things happening that I
could see ending up that story in the retelling.

>
> Your explanation here makes sense.

The Space Race was a geniune technical contest betwen two groups of
very capable of people. But the technical contest was very, very
secondary to the political conflict. And Eisenhower was very good
at that (other than the really stupid blunder of allowing Francis
Gary Powers to make a pointless overflight of the USSR in 1960, but
nobody is perfect). In the USSR, the politicians got in the way
because they were inept. In the US, they got in the way on purpose,
and for good reason.

[MajorOz]

On Monday, July 10, 2017 at 1:39:54 AM UTC-5, Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy wrote:

>
> I don't recall which PBS documentary show (maybe NOVA, or maybe
> American Experience, or maybe not) it was, but every subject coverd
> that I know anything about was dead on. I found it very credible.

I agree....with the exception of nuclear power discussions. Virtually all of it was emotion based -- even pandering to fear.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 23:07:32 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

>Gutless Umbrella Carrying Sissy <taus...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I recall reading somewhere that at one million lines of code, every
>>bug fixed, on average, introduces 1.2 new bugs. The ration goes up,
>>the more lines of code there are.
>
>In the middle eighties, I was a mainframe programmer. Because of the
>flexibility of the job control language, many job steps were focussed
>around a dummy program that just was a place to hang JCL onto.
>
>The program was originally four bytes long. IEFBR14. IEF means "IBM
>supplied program" and BR14 was the command for "return from
>subroutine."

Which is only two bytes.

>Of course, the program didn't zero out register 15, (return code from
>subroutine) so jobs with an overarching setting of "do this if any job
>step complains" would abort on the unpredictable reg 15 code.
>
>ZAPping reg 15 pushed the program to seven bytes. Almost as much
>bug-fix as original program.

SR 0,0 / BR 14 is only four bytes.

>I wonder how fat IEFBR15 got by the time we stopped doing mainframe
>"jobs" as the core of computing?

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko