From: utzoo!decvax!cca!hplabs!intelqa!gsp86!murray@sri-unix
Newsgroups: net.space
Title: Re: computers aboard Russian shuttle
Article-I.D.: gsp86.120
Posted: Thu Jun 17 21:09:06 1982
Received: Sun Jun 20 04:11:53 1982

	In regards to russian computers and ease of aquisition from the U.S.,
that really is not the true issue. The design of the five major computers
in the shuttle predate the 68000, the 8086, and probably the 8085.
Processing power is not really that big a dal in this situation, An
8080 or two would propaply be more than enough power for the syncronization
demands of the shuttle. The problem is reliability! Both the hardware
and the software must be reliable to the nth degree when you are staking
mens lives and more importantly (I'm sorry to say) national prestige on
whether or not your shuttle comes down intact. Based on the propaganda I've
heard, the Russians simply do not have the programming expertise to
write that kind of program. No matter who manufactures the hardware, that
hurdle has to be covered first. Shucks, I have my doubts that the people 
in this country have that kind of skill.... look what happened on the
attempted first launch of the Columbia.
	Also, those five main computers are not the only computers in

those shuttles. I am led to believe that there are many (100s?) of micro
processors onboard. (I admit the numbers I have heard are based only
on conjecture and heresay). Stealing a couple thousand 8080's (or 68000's)
for all the ancillary functions would probably not be easy, even for 
the Soviet Union (although I think it would be entirely 'do-able').

	One last point and I will stop flaming, if you were a high
Russian mucky-muck, and the only place you could get high technology
computer parts for your space flagship was those capitalistic self-
centered, western dogs who (whom?) you have been taught since child-
hood to despise and distrust, would steal the parts?

	In summation, I do not believe the russians have a shuttle
comparable to ours, but not for the reasons outlined in the article
for which I am posting this followup.

					murray at intelqa