Porting VMS versus building a new spacecraft

[Simon Clubley]

$ set response/mode=good_natured

It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

Simon.

[Mark Daniel]

Post by Simon Clubley
$ set response/mode=good_natured
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)
Simon.

A distinct advantage of not having to maintain backward compatibility.

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Post by Mark Daniel

Post by Simon Clubley
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

A distinct advantage of not having to maintain backward compatibility.

It could have been done in less time, by building on top of another OS
that was already native to the new architecture.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Simon Clubley
$ set response/mode=good_natured
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

Money is a good fuel for making things happen.

SpaceX has received a lot of money in funding.

Per wikipedia:

early - 100 M$ Musk + 100 M$ other + 800 M$ NASA
2015 - 1 B$ Google and Fidelity
2017 - 350 M$
2019 - 1.33 B$
2020 - 1.9 B$
2021 - 1.61 B$

I am willing to predict that if VSI has received billions
of dollars in funding then they could have gotten VMS x86-86
done faster.

VAX->Alpha was done by DEC when they were still one of
the biggest IT companies in the world. Alpha->Itanium
was done by HP when HP was one of the biggest IT companies
in the world.

Arne

[Dave Froble]

Post by Simon Clubley
$ set response/mode=good_natured
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)
Simon.

Yeah, enough money can do that.

[Stephen Hoffman]

Post by Simon Clubley
$ set response/mode=good_natured
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

The "move fast and break things" technical strategy employed at SpaceX
tends to be decidedly unpopular around here. 🚀💥 Once past its
initial development, Falcon has been a very solid platform. How that
works for Starship?

Semi-related viewing from Perun: The New Space Race, SpaceX & Starship
- Satellite constellations & Launcher Evolution

[Single Stage to Orbit]

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build
and successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less
time than it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

The "move fast and break things" technical strategy employed at
SpaceX tends to be decidedly unpopular around here.  🚀💥 Once past
its initial development, Falcon has been a very solid platform. How
that works for Starship?

Not so well for Boeing. Numerous issues with their StarLiner despite
being paid billions, whilst SpaceX got the job done for far less.
Perhaps there's something to be said for that development model, as
long as there's a strong focus on safety.

[Arne Vajhøj]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build
and successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less
time than it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

The "move fast and break things" technical strategy employed at
SpaceX tends to be decidedly unpopular around here.  🚀💥 Once past
its initial development, Falcon has been a very solid platform. How
that works for Starship?

Not so well for Boeing. Numerous issues with their StarLiner despite
being paid billions, whilst SpaceX got the job done for far less.
Perhaps there's something to be said for that development model, as
long as there's a strong focus on safety.

I got the impression that Boeing does not have a problem with
StarLiner but that Boing simply has a problem.

737, 787, StarLiner, T-7, KC-46, Air Force One.

Arne

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Arne Vajhøj

Post by Single Stage to Orbit
Not so well for Boeing. Numerous issues with their StarLiner despite
being paid billions, whilst SpaceX got the job done for far less.
Perhaps there's something to be said for that development model, as
long as there's a strong focus on safety.

I got the impression that Boeing does not have a problem with
StarLiner but that Boing simply has a problem.
737, 787, StarLiner, T-7, KC-46, Air Force One.

Boeing's problem is that the beancounters took over from the engineers
during the merger. We are now seeing the results of that.

Of course, this short-term next-quarter attitude is the same problem that
is affecting way too many critical companies here in the West for the last
couple of decades.

I would also argue that this is also a failure of multiple governments in
multiple countries in that they should never have allowed the companies
within their control to weaken the infrastructure of the countries in
question with outsourcing and replacement of experienced employees.

These countries (including the US) are no longer in control of their own
destiny due to the outsourcing of critical infrastructure and manufacturing
infrastructure. Of course, in the case of the UK, we are about to find out
if the next bunch of jokers will be any better than the current bunch of
jokers...

I recently watched some historical documentaries about the US during the
1950s/1960s because I wanted to know more about US military technologies
and capabilities during that time period. I wonder if the US today could
even build a modern-day DEW line let alone how long it would take _if_
they could still do it. :-(

IOW, the Boeing problems are just a symptom of a far larger problem in
our societies in how, thanks to this short-term and "me, me, me!!!" thinking,
we have lost control of the long-term destiny of our societies.

Simon.

[Stephen Hoffman]

Post by Simon Clubley
I recently watched some historical documentaries about the US during
the 1950s/1960s because I wanted to know more about US military
technologies and capabilities during that time period. I wonder if the
US today could even build a modern-day DEW line let alone how long it
would take _if_ they could still do it. :-(

We're nowhere near done cleaning up the mess from that era, including
Camp Century.

As for the intended warning purpose—and ignoring the many messes those
efforts have caused—one of the declassified details we know a very
little something about from a system not that long after DEW was
decommissioned is the so-called Vela incident.

Current (public) system is SBIRS, and a development prototype of a LEO
system known as Blackjack, and work on Starshield LEO system with
SpaceX is currently underway.

And US Space Force wants what amount to suborbital taxis with eighty
short tons delivered ~anywhere in an hour, and certainly wouldn't mind
having access to UD-4L Cheyenne, D77 Pelican, or other orbital
dropships. "We're in the pipe, 5x5."

As for OpenVMS, VSI is not moving particularly fast. Or they're being
exceedingly quiet about it. And I'm not sure the VSI investor is
inclined to spend a chunk of a billion dollars to build a new OS. Or to
build a rocket.

Not to HAARP on anything or anyone, of course.

[Dave Froble]

Post by Single Stage to Orbit

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build
and successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less
time than it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

The "move fast and break things" technical strategy employed at
SpaceX tends to be decidedly unpopular around here. 🚀💥 Once past
its initial development, Falcon has been a very solid platform. How
that works for Starship?

Not so well for Boeing. Numerous issues with their StarLiner despite
being paid billions, whilst SpaceX got the job done for far less.
Perhaps there's something to be said for that development model, as
long as there's a strong focus on safety.

It is problematic to ass-u-me that an idea will work. Much better to test. The
test may fail, but, possibly why will be learned, and another method tried,
tested, and if it works, sort of "proven". Real "proven" would be multiple
tests, not just one.

Boeing spends lots of money on speculation. Space-X tests and knows what works,
or, what must be improved. Lots to be said for the Space-X development model.

[Simon Clubley]

Post by Stephen Hoffman

Post by Simon Clubley
$ set response/mode=good_natured
It occurred to me yesterday that Elon Musk has been able to build and
successfully fly (mostly) a new rocket and spacecraft in less time than
it has taken to port VMS to x86-64. :-)

The "move fast and break things" technical strategy employed at SpaceX
tends to be decidedly unpopular around here. ?? Once past its
initial development, Falcon has been a very solid platform. How that
works for Starship?

The most exciting thing about Falcon is that Elon Musk has made space
access routine.

Also, thanks to him, we are now close to having the technology that
could be used to build a Thunderbird 3 for real. Technology that was
once just futuristic science fiction is on the verge of becoming reality.
Think about _that_ for a moment and about how far we have come over the
last 10 years...

(Hmmm, perhaps someone should put that TB3 idea into his head for real. :-))

Simon.