Path: utzoo!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!bnr-public!schow
From: schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: USSR Microcomputers: How far behind US?
Message-ID: <476@bnr-fos.UUCP>
Date: 6 May 89 05:15:19 GMT
References: <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> <4366@ttidca.TTI.COM>
Sender: news@bnr-fos.UUCP
Reply-To: schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Lines: 32
Summary:
Followup-To:
Keywords:

In article <4366@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>In article <1905@etive.ed.ac.uk> nick@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Nick Rothwell) writes:
>}Well, in Space Research in particular, I get the impression that the USSR
>}have some advantages. How come their space shuttle can land itself, but the
>}American one can't?
>
>I think ours has the capability, but it's reserved for emergency use
>because of safety considerations.  I helped with some of the initial
>testing and development of the Heads Up Display (HUD).  It provides a
>zero-zero landing capability, among other things, but, for obvious
>reasons, they avoid using it in that capacity.
>
>(Would you fly several billion dollars worth of hardware blind if you
>didn't have to?)
>

So, the USSR tests their shuttle with computer controlled landing,
and the USA tests theirs with people.

This says either the USSR trusts their computers more, or values their
pilots more. To send pilots up on the first flight sounds to me a little
"gutsy", especailly when you have computer that can land the shuttle.

BTW, what are the obvious reasons for avoiding the zero-zero landing
capabiltiy? I can understand avoiding *to have* to use it, but to never
use it altogether? How can it be tested? (I assume zero-zero is some kind
of automatic system that can land even in zero visibility etc).

Stanley Chow        BitNet:  schow@BNR.CA
BNR		    UUCP:    ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow
(613) 763-2831		     ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public
I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.