DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_hi_te/shuttle_recovered_data

On the Net:

NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:

http://tinyurl.com/44nqgv

the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
as the OS for the space shuttle,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_hi_te/shuttle_recovered_data

On the Net:

NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:

http://tinyurl.com/44nqgv

the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
as the OS for the space shuttle, saying that facilitated writing to
one hard drive. Windows can also write to one drive - just don't
partition it.

what leads me to think it was a governmint coverup is the stating that
a NASA contractor kept the hard drive for 6 months before handing it
over to Kroll Ontrack to 'recover' the data. why did the contractor
hold on to it for so long? yeah, we got us one of dem dar govmint
covups again. but what else would you expect from NASA, and, also,
the evil EWOC (Emperor WithOut Clothes) GWBush!

triba la raza!

On May 9, 9:36 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr... at (no spam) ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
triba_la_r... at (no spam) yahoo.com wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080509/ap_on_hi_te/shuttle_recovered_data
On the Net:
NASA write-up of the experiment whose data was recovered:
http://tinyurl.com/44nqgv
the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
as the OS for the space shuttle,
DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle. The space shuttle carried
experiments from many different agencies and some of them used DOS. That
does not mean that DOS was the OS for the space shuttle.

the article stated that DOS was used stupid. did you even take time
to read the article, you lazy fuck?

On May 10, 12:32 pm, "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr... at (no spam) ibm-pc.borg> wrote:
James Of Tucson wrote:

At one time, the GPCs were based on a Motorola 68000, but a special
one that was designed for the space program.
That one ran OS-9. It was actually the second generation GPC, in
84.
No. The GPCs have always been from the IBM AP-101 family. They started
out as AP-101B and were upgraded to AP-101S starting in 1991. The S has
more memory and has the IOP integrated into the CPU, while the B had
separate CPUs and IOPs.

The AP-101 family never used Motorola microprocessors. The AP-101 is
binary-compatible with the IBM System/360 series.

The OS on the shuttle AP-101 GPCs has never been OS-9. The PASS GPCs run
a custom OS called FCOS. I don't remember what the OS is called on the
BFS GPC but it wasn't OS-9.

See Jenkins, 3rd ed, pp 406-407 for discussion.

didn't notice it from your 1st post, Jorge, but saw it when James Of
Tucson responded to you.

yeah, you have 'ibm' in your email addy. we all know how you IBMers
fly by the seat of your pants, so i am sure you DIDN'T read the link i
posted when i started the thread.

On Sun, 18 May 2008 16:42:46 -0700 (PDT), triba_la_raza at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote:


the news article tried to downplay the use of the DOS operating system
as the OS for the space shuttle,
DOS was never the OS for the space shuttle. The space shuttle carried
experiments from many different agencies and some of them used DOS. That
does not mean that DOS was the OS for the space shuttle.
the article stated that DOS was used stupid. did you even take time
to read the article,

But the article does not say that DOS is the OS for the space shuttle.
That was entirely you adding 2 + 2 and getting 22, and then acting
like a 9 year old child when you were corrected about it.

As Jorge explained (uselessly to you, it appears), the recovered hard
drive was part of an experiment installed in the Spacehab laboratory
module in the Columbia's cargo bay.

The "OS" of the Space Shuttle is not DOS, it is HAL/S, a type of
Assembly Language. This is well-documented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL/S

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_AP-101

OK, took me too long to catch on, triba_la_raza is a loon.

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfr... at (no spam) ibm-pc.borg> wrote:

It is also probably worth pointing out that there are other "computers"
on the shuttle that are more powerful than the GPCs. The MEDS IDPs are
Intel 386-based, and the MEDS MDUs have RISC processors, for example.

It's also worth pointing out that many people a) overestimate the
amount of computing power required because they make the
apples-to-oranges comparison with their PC's and, b) don't understand
just how different in design, hardware, and software, dedicated
control systems are from those general purpose PC's.

Of course. You don't need a fancy user interface on a dedicated control
system, for example. (I was hoping someone would notice that the most
powerful CPUs built into the shuttle - the RISC CPUs, MIPS R3000 I
believe - are the ones that run the user interface on the MEDS MDUs. And
the least powerful CPUs - the AP-101S GPCs - are the ones that do the
real number crunching.)

The Apollo Guidance Computer had a 15-bit word size, and had 36K words
of fixed memory, 2K words of erasable memory. That's (almost) all they
needed to go to the moon and back. (I say almost because Apollo had no
onboard targeting capability for TLI, translunar midcourse, LOI, and TEI
burns. And of course the Saturn IU had its own digital computer to
handle launch-to-orbit and TLI.)

The LM Abort Guidance System was even more impressive, with an 18-bit
word size, 2K words of fixed memory and 2K words of erasable memory.
That's all you need to abort from powered descent, perform powered
ascent to guided cutoff conditions, and perform rendezvous with the CSM,
all in less memory than a typical Atari 2600 game cartridge.

It's pretty amazing what you can do when you stick to simple user
interfaces, program in assembly language, and make every word count.

Rick Jones <rick.jones2 at (no spam) hp.com> wrote:

:It was in the IBM "PC-RT" which those enough "fortunate" to be at
:CMU ca 1984-1988 could use as an "Andrew" workstation.

No, that was a different processor. I think that one was the
RS/6000.