America's biggest mistake

[Clifford Heath]

On 22/7/19 3:15 pm, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:

On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:03:30 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:


And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

The ranging system used in Apollo is now known as two way ranging and
is used in all planetary probes these days.

While GPS also uses PRN codes, it is essentially a one way system.

They didn't have an atomic clock on the Apollo, nor a ground computer
capable of the relativistic calculations needed. The downlink was
frequency locked to the uplink to cancel the doppler effect on ranging,
so relativity didn't need to be accounted for.

That's immaterial - using an uplink is just another way of getting the
spacecraft to send a reliable signal, plus it doubles the resolution.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:45:23 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 22/7/19 3:15 pm, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:03:30 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:


And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

The ranging system used in Apollo is now known as two way ranging and
is used in all planetary probes these days.

While GPS also uses PRN codes, it is essentially a one way system.

They didn't have an atomic clock on the Apollo, nor a ground computer
capable of the relativistic calculations needed. The downlink was
frequency locked to the uplink to cancel the doppler effect on ranging,
so relativity didn't need to be accounted for.

That's immaterial - using an uplink is just another way of getting the
spacecraft to send a reliable signal, plus it doubles the resolution.

But GPS can't use it, because there's no way of getting a signal back from the ground receiver to the orbiting transmitter.

Let's face it - your grasp of what GPS does and what the Apollo ranging system did is remarkably superficial.

They are "the same thing" to about the same extent as Model T Ford is the same thing as a Tesla.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 22/7/19 6:18 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:42:15 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
One spacecraft, multiple ground
stations (triangulation only useful at certain ranges near earth due to
baseline length and visibility). One GPS receiver, multiple (moving)
satellites. It's the same thing.

If you haven't got much grasp of what's going on. Apollo didn't seem to need general relativistic correction, GPS wouldn't work without it.

Once you can use a single signal to get centimeter accuracy at a quarter
of a million miles, everything else seems comparatively trivial.

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 22/7/19 6:24 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:45:23 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/7/19 3:15 pm, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:03:30 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:


And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

The ranging system used in Apollo is now known as two way ranging and
is used in all planetary probes these days.

While GPS also uses PRN codes, it is essentially a one way system.

They didn't have an atomic clock on the Apollo, nor a ground computer
capable of the relativistic calculations needed. The downlink was
frequency locked to the uplink to cancel the doppler effect on ranging,
so relativity didn't need to be accounted for.

That's immaterial - using an uplink is just another way of getting the
spacecraft to send a reliable signal, plus it doubles the resolution.

But GPS can't use it, because there's no way of getting a signal back from the ground receiver to the orbiting transmitter.

Let's face it - your grasp of what GPS does and what the Apollo ranging system did is remarkably superficial.

They are "the same thing" to about the same extent as Model T Ford is the same thing as a Tesla.

You really are one dumb offensive idiot.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:24:09 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:

On 22/7/19 6:24 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 5:45:23 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/7/19 3:15 pm, upsidedown@downunder.com wrote:
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 11:03:30 +1000, Clifford Heath
no.spam@please.net> wrote:


And GPS is just the Apollo ranging system (which I described in another
thread today), turned upside-down, with relativistic calculations to
locate the birds, and triangulation to compute the position.

The ranging system used in Apollo is now known as two way ranging and
is used in all planetary probes these days.

While GPS also uses PRN codes, it is essentially a one way system.

They didn't have an atomic clock on the Apollo, nor a ground computer
capable of the relativistic calculations needed. The downlink was
frequency locked to the uplink to cancel the doppler effect on ranging,
so relativity didn't need to be accounted for.

That's immaterial - using an uplink is just another way of getting the
spacecraft to send a reliable signal, plus it doubles the resolution.

But GPS can't use it, because there's no way of getting a signal back from the ground receiver to the orbiting transmitter.

Let's face it - your grasp of what GPS does and what the Apollo ranging system did is remarkably superficial.

They are "the same thing" to about the same extent as Model T Ford is the same thing as a Tesla.

You really are one dumb offensive idiot.

That's your opinion, and it strikes me as being worth about as much as your opinion about the relationship between the Apollo ranging system and the Global Positioning System. But that's just my opinion.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[dcaster@krl.org]

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it
was never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were
building computers for commercial use, the military and
commercial users were using semiconductors. Like all
technology, it would have been a huge commercial success with
or without the Apollo program, and with or without NASA.


Texas Instuments made the first intergrated circuit.

Germanium

NASA and the
military were not involved in making the first ic.

Yes they were. The first Silicon IC chip, which was by Noyce and
Fairchild. Far superior to the TI Germanium device.

Perhaps you should have read a bit more.

The ic's that TI were silicon, not Germanium.

The Space Program had very little to do with making ic's. The oil industry used more computers than the Space Program. The launch computer for the moon shot was a RCA 110a. The RCA 110 was made to control drilling rigs. The 110A was a modified 110. The mod was to add 7 more banks of memory. The RCA 110A had 8 memory banks each bank was 8 k of 24 bit words. The memory was mag core memory.
So much for NASA pushing the development of the state of the art. The Computers used transistors , not tubes or ic's.

Dan

 

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:166b7698-6f11-4a08-8f37-9721e312c588@googlegroups.com:

You've snipped a whole lot of stuff which went back rather
earlier, which makes you a cheat as well as a dope.

If you want to cheat, try to be less obvious about it.

No. I snipped where *I* said 1960. You replied with 1967, so what
I snipped that you wrote makes NO DIFFERENCE.

I did not 'cheat'.

1967 is NOT 1960.

In 1960 they were NOT selling ANY chips to ANY commercial buyers.
There were none. Fairchild's first chip went into the Titan ICBM.
missile.

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in news:301b0fed-f530-4606-
ae20-8e9363711b8f@googlegroups.com:

The ic's that TI were silicon, not Germanium.

No. TI's FIRST IC (the one they claim to be first with) was Ge.

Their SUBSEQUENT chips may have been Si, but Noyce developed the Si
chip first and that and Fairchild is what the mil boys went with.

 

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 2:27:00 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

upsidedown@downunder.com wrote in
news:n7iaje5nfbek9tft3o4aikip649nnghkie@4ax.com:

The Soviets had a big dumb booster (Sputnik/Vostok/Soyuz) so they
did
not have to watch every gram and could use more or less off the
shelf
components and equipment.


There was no such thing as "off the shelf" back then. Especially
not for us

Exactly what period are you referring to? By the time of the actual
moon shot, ICs were in fact off the shelf and had been for years.
TI introduced the 7400 family in 1964.

 

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 12:02:12 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-
6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

Wrong, always wrong. The first semiconductor based computers were
in existence in 1953, both in the US and the UK.

But NOT with IC chips. They were not around yet.

This is what you posted:

"IBM was using tubes and that was not going to cut it on the moon."

IBM, Sperry Rand, DEC, etc were already producing computers using transistors,
not tubes. And an IBM design using discrete components was one of the
two designs that NASA considered for Apollo, the decision was close,
so obviously NASA thought a design that used discrete semiconductors
was viable.

The logic circuits were all discreet components. Not that you have
enough brains or experience in the field to even know what the term
means.

You really don't get it.

"IBM was using tubes and that was not going to cut it on the moon."

Nuff said.

Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 12:11:58 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-
6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

Yet they had a solid state computer in 1953.

Apples and oranges.

There are no 2 ton computers on any spacecraft.

The IC chip made it possible to make a computer small enough to be
part of the payload of a spacecraft.

In fact there were two competing choices for the guidance computer for
Apollo. One was an IBM design that used discrete components, not ICs.
It's advantage was that it was a proven design at the time. So NASA
did not share your opinion.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:129255d9-78d1-435e-ada5-23eda0ea79d2@googlegroups.com:

and have never read that NASA and the military told them to do it,
funded them to do it or were directly involved in any way.

Oh boy! *you* "have never read".

Like I give a fat flying fuck about your endorsements.

All those computers you have been blathering about and you have no
clue what they were used for.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 10:34:13 PM UTC+10, dca...@krl.org wrote:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it
was never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were
building computers for commercial use, the military and
commercial users were using semiconductors. Like all
technology, it would have been a huge commercial success with
or without the Apollo program, and with or without NASA.


Texas Instuments made the first intergrated circuit.

Germanium

NASA and the
military were not involved in making the first ic.

Yes they were. The first Silicon IC chip, which was by Noyce and
Fairchild. Far superior to the TI Germanium device.

Perhaps you should have read a bit more.

The ic's that TI were silicon, not Germanium.

https://anysilicon.com/history-integrated-circuit/

The first integrated circuit made by Jack Kilby at Texas Instruments in 1958 was made with germanium. The first practical integrated circuits were made with silicon at Fairchild, using their newly invented planar process.

"Fairchild went forward and created IC chips for use in the Apollo spacecraft which went to the moon. It was this program along with using chips for satellites that spread the IC from military applications to the commercial market. It also lowered the price of the IC drastically which made it perfect for use in many electronic devices."

> The Space Program had very little to do with making ic's. The oil industry used more computers than the Space Program.

Not a particularly relevant observation.

The launch computer for the moon shot was a RCA 110a. The RCA 110 was made to control drilling rigs. The 110A was a modified 110. The mod was to add 7 more banks of memory. The RCA 110A had 8 memory banks each bank was 8 k of 24 bit words. The memory was mag core memory.
So much for NASA pushing the development of the state of the art. The Computers used transistors , not tubes or ic's.

The launch computer stayed on the ground. It's size and mass didn't matter much.

The mass of the gear that went into orbit did need to be minimised.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:17:25 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:37c009c3-782a-4ebe-ad96-e2987b0c5141@googlegroups.com:

On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 7:47:15 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:



You are a true idiot. IBM was using tubes and that was not
going
to cut it on the moon. Yes the transistor was being put to use,
but you have no grasp of scale.

NASA and the military worked with Fairchild to make the very
first
integrated circuit chip, and other chips which were used on the
Moon shot. Intel came out of those original scientists. Oh and
that chip was not "commercially available" for many years, so
your conclusion jump fails like all your other quick google
glance and act like you know fuck all methods. You know NOTHING
about what went down then. Even a turbine impeller blade shape
was top secret in 1960. You are an absolute
dope.trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d7085918-1568-4c57-a38e-4068f192b0e6@googlegroups.com:

ROFL. Where did you come up with that? Sure, the moon program
helped accelerate the pace of semiconductor technology, but it
was never the only application. IBM, DG, DEC and others were
building computers for commercial use, the military and
commercial users were using semiconductors. Like all
technology, it would have been a huge commercial success with
or without the Apollo program, and with or without NASA.


Texas Instuments made the first intergrated circuit.

Germanium

NASA and the
military were not involved in making the first ic.

Yes they were. The first Silicon IC chip, which was by Noyce and
Fairchild. Far superior to the TI Germanium device.

Perhaps you should have read a bit more.

Perhaps you should provide us for a cite for that. I've read about Noyce
and Kilby who are both separately credited for the invention of the IC
and have never read that NASA and the military told them to do it, funded
them to do it or were directly involved in any way. NASA in particular
is an absurd assertion, because Kilby was already working on his IC
before NASA even existed.

Was the military a logical customer for products containing ICs? Sure.
But they and the space program were not the only customers. For example,
IBM, Sperry-Rand, DEC, etc were building computers for commercial use
using discrete transistors and they were obvious customers. So, again,
did NASA help create demand for ICs and help make the advancement happen faster?
Sure. But the technology was revolutionary, compelling and it would
have happened anyway, though it likely would have taken a longer.

Regarding Apollo specifically, when the contract for the guidance computer
was issued, a design using ICs was only one of the two choices. The other
was an IBM design, using discrete components. And there was a lot of
argument in favor of the IBM design, primarily in that it was proven,
it was used in ICBMs and the Saturn V, and a more reliable choice
than going with ICs, which had just started to become available.
Particularly of note, those responsible for the evaluation
did not say the IBM design could not be used because of size, weight, etc.

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:301b0fed-f530-4606-ae20-8e9363711b8f@googlegroups.com:

So much for NASA pushing the development of the state of the art.
The Computers used transistors , not tubes or ic's.

You are very smart, D. Just lacking a bit in this case.

They used ICs.

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in
news:301b0fed-f530-4606-ae20-8e9363711b8f@googlegroups.com:

The launch computer for the moon shot was a RCA 110a. The RCA
110 was made to control drilling rigs.

The "launch computer" was a huge mainframe in Houston.

The moonshot LEM AGC computer was made by Raytheon.
They had IC chips in them.

custom chips... hmmmm...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KSahAoOLdU

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in news:301b0fed-f530-4606-
ae20-8e9363711b8f@googlegroups.com:

> The oil industry used more computers than the Space Program.

Not back then.

 

"dcaster@krl.org" <dcaster@krl.org> wrote in news:301b0fed-f530-4606-
ae20-8e9363711b8f@googlegroups.com:

> The Space Program had very little to do with making ic's.

The makers of the Titan missile might differ with you.

The Gemini spacecraft sits on top of a Titan II missile.

Guess what is inside?

NASA was the NACA.

Space and missiles that go up into and then drop out of space were
very much part of ALL computer development, and continued into the
'space programs' we added to the military realm.

Computers were initially used by the military to compute mortar and
howitzer projectile trajectories that formerly took a room full of
women with tabletop calculators to do.

 

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:27:40 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote in
news:166b7698-6f11-4a08-8f37-9721e312c588@googlegroups.com:

You've snipped a whole lot of stuff which went back rather
earlier, which makes you a cheat as well as a dope.

If you want to cheat, try to be less obvious about it.


No. I snipped where *I* said 1960. You replied with 1967, so what
I snipped that you wrote makes NO DIFFERENCE.

I did not 'cheat'.

1967 is NOT 1960.

In 1960 they were NOT selling ANY chips to ANY commercial buyers.
There were none. Fairchild's first chip went into the Titan ICBM.
missile.

http://www.wylie.org.uk/technology/computer/ICs/monolith/monolith.htm


"Since TI and Fairchild were the co-inventors of the IC, you might expect that they would release the first commercial devices, and in fact this was so. In some places on the Web the Fairchild 900 series is credited with being the first to market, in 1961, but the documented evidence does not support that: the Chip Collection gives a very specific date of March 1960 and price for the first announced TI chip, the SN502, and Khambata states unequivocally that "In 1960, Texas Instruments announced the introduction of the earliest product line of integrated logic circuits. TI's trade name is 'Solid Circuits' for this line. This family, called the series 51, utilized the modified DCTL circuit...". Finally, "Electronic Design" magazine announced the Texas devices in March 1960,and Fairchild prototype chips in November 1960. "


Wrong, always wrong.


Here's a photo of a TI ad for their ICs, 1962:

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102762883

 

On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 12:15:27 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:b7441221-ca6f-4855-9876-6a8ca887ce95@googlegroups.com:

IBM was using transistors, the iconic 360 line was introduced in
1964, 5 years before the moon landing and obviously IBM was
working on the 360 for years before that. So was Sperry Rand:

You are about as stupid as it gets.

Mainframes computers back then had no ICs in them because the ICs
did not exist yet.

I did not say that any computers had ICs in them at the time the US
started the Apollo program. However you posted this whopper:

"IBM was using tubes and that was not going to cut it on the moon."

You do a good job of googling but only prove you have no actual
been around to see it knowledge.

You are a fat assed punk, at best. I doubt that you are even 30
years old. Your eleven year old mental age is sure glaring.

This from the guy who posted:

"IBM was using tubes and that was not going to cut it on the moon."

In fact IBM, Sperry Rand, DEC, etc were producing computers using
transistors when the Apollo program started. And there were two different
concepts for the Apollo guidance computer at the time, one using ICs
the other an IBM design using discrete components. The two were
evaluated and hotly debated. No one was saying the IBM design could
not be used, in fact it was favored by many because it was a proven
design, while ICs were new and uncertain.



Wrong, always wrong.