Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Monday, 22 July 2019 11:24:09 UTC+1, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 22/7/19 6:24 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
You really are one dumb offensive idiot.
There is only one solution. Plonk him.
On 23/7/19 3:13 am, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 10:40:06 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:39:02 -0500, tubeguy@myshop.com wrote:
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon 50 years ago. This was
the start of satellites, which lead to the cell phones. Now we have a
generation of idiot "cell tards". (Kids addicted to cellphones who have
no real lives).
That was an expensive mistake, but it didn't create satellites. It
actually didn't create much of anything.
America's biggest mistake was slavery.
I'll agree with that!
America's biggest mistake was not to repulse the white European invaders.
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:h12cjehoob584530v8aj1jctbbhmu84ksa@4ax.com:
NASA's budget is now 21 billion. We could do some serious space
science and aeronautics if we canned the absurd manned flight
programs.
We ARE doing serious space science. That is what the ISS is for.
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 04:22:45 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7709b397-927b-4750-85ee-2485e8c799c4@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:18:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:uu0ajetdmd8fnu5lsm91rtj9q7ltolfat6@
4ax.com:
You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in
1958 and the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.
Neither used IC chips either. They were 100% discreet wired.
Try again.
ROFL
You claimed IBM was using TUBES. Now it's "discreet wired".
Discreet wired what? Transistors, moron.
Wrong, always wrong.
You have a maturity problem.
You're AlwaysWrong. This is no exception.
You are so good at googling or so you think. Look up integrated
circuit you retarded putz.
Which would be totally irrelevant.
And you jacking off at the mouth about the use of the term
"discreet wired" proves that you are an idiot too, as it is widely
used in the electronics industry, you pathetic little putz.
There's that AlwaysWrong "maturity" we've all come to expect.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7709b397-927b-4750-85ee-2485e8c799c4@googlegroups.com:
On Sunday, July 21, 2019 at 9:18:31 PM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
krw@notreal.com wrote in news:uu0ajetdmd8fnu5lsm91rtj9q7ltolfat6@
4ax.com:
You're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong. The IBM 7070 came out in
1958 and the 7090 in 1959. Neither used tubes.
Neither used IC chips either. They were 100% discreet wired.
Try again.
ROFL
You claimed IBM was using TUBES. Now it's "discreet wired".
Discreet wired what? Transistors, moron.
Wrong, always wrong.
You have a maturity problem.
You are so good at googling or so you think. Look up integrated
circuit you retarded putz.
And you jacking off at the mouth about the use of the term
"discreet wired" proves that you are an idiot too, as it is widely
used in the electronics industry, you pathetic little putz.
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf
On Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:13:06 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
gherold@teachspin.com> wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 10:40:06 AM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Thu, 18 Jul 2019 19:39:02 -0500, tubeguy@myshop.com wrote:
America's biggest mistake was landing on the moon 50 years ago. This was
the start of satellites, which lead to the cell phones. Now we have a
generation of idiot "cell tards". (Kids addicted to cellphones who have
no real lives).
That was an expensive mistake, but it didn't create satellites. It
actually didn't create much of anything.
America's biggest mistake was slavery.
I'll agree with that!
Re: Apollo, I read in the paper that for a few years we were spending
something like 2% of GDP on the moon program. (I had no idea it was
that big.)
A TV documentary that I saw last week claimed that NASA consumed 4 %
of the US GDP.
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:14:14 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 5:23 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf
I counted at least four separate *factual errors* in that article
concerning Parkes vs HSK:
The video feed did *not* "initially alternate[d] between the signals
being received from its two stations at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek";
it started at HSK for the first steps and moved to Parkes later. One
switch, no alternation.
That might have been true of the video feed that went out to the world. The video transmissions to Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek presumably went through a bit of handshaking before the onward transmissions got going.
Parkes was *not* "fully equipped to communicate with Apollo 11" as it
had no uplink.
"The Parkes radiotelescope and Honeysuckle Creek stations in Australia
received the telemetry from the Lunar Module" but Parkes didn't have
equipment to decode the telemetry; it was sent to Honeysuckle for that.
"... including the first television pictures from the first moonwalk for
distribution to millions of people on Earth" is not true of Parkes.
I know both the authors
https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/global-big-data-technologies-centre/about-centre/our-people-1-1
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/karu-esselle
Their opinions are more likely to be correct than yours.
On 23/7/19 5:23 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf
I counted at least four separate *factual errors* in that article
concerning Parkes vs HSK:
The video feed did *not* "initially alternate[d] between the signals
being received from its two stations at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek";
it started at HSK for the first steps and moved to Parkes later. One
switch, no alternation.
Parkes was *not* "fully equipped to communicate with Apollo 11" as it
had no uplink.
"The Parkes radiotelescope and Honeysuckle Creek stations in Australia
received the telemetry from the Lunar Module" but Parkes didn't have
equipment to decode the telemetry; it was sent to Honeysuckle for that.
"... including the first television pictures from the first moonwalk for
distribution to millions of people on Earth" is not true of Parkes.
Less shallow? Or just propaganda of the kind that John Sarkissian and in
fact the whole IEEE has been producing for years?
On 24/7/19 1:48 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:14:14 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 5:23 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf
I counted at least four separate *factual errors* in that article
concerning Parkes vs HSK:
The video feed did *not* "initially alternate[d] between the signals
being received from its two stations at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek";
it started at HSK for the first steps and moved to Parkes later. One
switch, no alternation.
That might have been true of the video feed that went out to the world. The video transmissions to Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek presumably went through a bit of handshaking before the onward transmissions got going.
Parkes was *not* "fully equipped to communicate with Apollo 11" as it
had no uplink.
"The Parkes radiotelescope and Honeysuckle Creek stations in Australia
received the telemetry from the Lunar Module" but Parkes didn't have
equipment to decode the telemetry; it was sent to Honeysuckle for that.
"... including the first television pictures from the first moonwalk for
distribution to millions of people on Earth" is not true of Parkes.
I know both the authors
https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/global-big-data-technologies-centre/about-centre/our-people-1-1
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/karu-esselle
Their opinions are more likely to be correct than yours.
They have been duped.
I'm not offering opinions. I'm comparing the IEEE claims with
established facts.
For what it's worth, I had sent the same to Mike Dinn
who is also an engineer and was station manager at Honeysuckle Creek at
the time. Why didn't you ask him to comment?
He said (3 minutes ago!): "What a refreshingly perceptive, accurate
critique! Makes a nice change from all things Parkes- and CSIRO-centric.
And any discussion of Australia and Apollo has to include Tidbinbilla,
Carnarvon, PMG, OTC, and a whole host of other direct and indirect
supporting organisations and individuals.
It might have been nice for the IEEEE to have run the article by me. I
was/am an engineer, and was at the centre of activities."
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 2:17:09 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 24/7/19 1:48 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:14:14 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 5:23 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf
I counted at least four separate *factual errors* in that article
concerning Parkes vs HSK:
The video feed did *not* "initially alternate[d] between the signals
being received from its two stations at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek";
it started at HSK for the first steps and moved to Parkes later. One
switch, no alternation.
That might have been true of the video feed that went out to the world. The video transmissions to Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek presumably went through a bit of handshaking before the onward transmissions got going.
Parkes was *not* "fully equipped to communicate with Apollo 11" as it
had no uplink.
"The Parkes radiotelescope and Honeysuckle Creek stations in Australia
received the telemetry from the Lunar Module" but Parkes didn't have
equipment to decode the telemetry; it was sent to Honeysuckle for that.
"... including the first television pictures from the first moonwalk for
distribution to millions of people on Earth" is not true of Parkes.
I know both the authors
https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/global-big-data-technologies-centre/about-centre/our-people-1-1
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/karu-esselle
Their opinions are more likely to be correct than yours.
They have been duped.
Or you have. I wouldn't rate Trevor Bird or Karu Asselle as people who were easy to dupe. You I'm less confident about.
I'm not offering opinions. I'm comparing the IEEE claims with
established facts.
Or what you imagine to be the established facts.
For what it's worth, I had sent the same to Mike Dinn
who is also an engineer and was station manager at Honeysuckle Creek at
the time. Why didn't you ask him to comment?
He said (3 minutes ago!): "What a refreshingly perceptive, accurate
critique! Makes a nice change from all things Parkes- and CSIRO-centric.
And any discussion of Australia and Apollo has to include Tidbinbilla,
Carnarvon, PMG, OTC, and a whole host of other direct and indirect
supporting organisations and individuals.
It might have been nice for the IEEEE to have run the article by me. I
was/am an engineer, and was at the centre of activities."
I'm sure that if anybody had known who Mike Dinn was, and that he was still alive and willing to take the time to comment, the article would have been copied to him.
Since you haven't posted the "critique" on which he was commenting
On 24/7/19 4:52 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 2:17:09 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 24/7/19 1:48 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:14:14 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 5:23 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:
For a slightly less shallow piece of insight see pages 6-10 of the NSW IEEE newsletter, which I happen to edit
http://sites.ieee.org/nsw/files/2019/07/Circuit_July_2019v1.pdf
I counted at least four separate *factual errors* in that article
concerning Parkes vs HSK:
The video feed did *not* "initially alternate[d] between the signals
being received from its two stations at Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek";
it started at HSK for the first steps and moved to Parkes later. One
switch, no alternation.
That might have been true of the video feed that went out to the world. The video transmissions to Parkes and Honeysuckle Creek presumably went through a bit of handshaking before the onward transmissions got going.
Parkes was *not* "fully equipped to communicate with Apollo 11" as it
had no uplink.
"The Parkes radiotelescope and Honeysuckle Creek stations in Australia
received the telemetry from the Lunar Module" but Parkes didn't have
equipment to decode the telemetry; it was sent to Honeysuckle for that.
"... including the first television pictures from the first moonwalk for
distribution to millions of people on Earth" is not true of Parkes.
I know both the authors
https://www.uts.edu.au/research-and-teaching/our-research/global-big-data-technologies-centre/about-centre/our-people-1-1
https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/persons/karu-esselle
Their opinions are more likely to be correct than yours.
They have been duped.
Or you have. I wouldn't rate Trevor Bird or Karu Esselle as people who were easy to dupe. You I'm less confident about.
I'm not offering opinions. I'm comparing the IEEE claims with
established facts.
Or what you imagine to be the established facts.
The facts are the ones quoted above, contrary to IEEE claims. Check them
yourself. They are not my opinions.
For what it's worth, I had sent the same to Mike Dinn
who is also an engineer and was station manager at Honeysuckle Creek at
the time. Why didn't you ask him to comment?
He said (3 minutes ago!): "What a refreshingly perceptive, accurate
critique! Makes a nice change from all things Parkes- and CSIRO-centric.
And any discussion of Australia and Apollo has to include Tidbinbilla,
Carnarvon, PMG, OTC, and a whole host of other direct and indirect
supporting organisations and individuals.
It might have been nice for the IEEEE to have run the article by me. I
was/am an engineer, and was at the centre of activities."
I'm sure that if anybody had known who Mike Dinn was, and that he was still alive and willing to take the time to comment, the article would have been copied to him.
Since you haven't posted the "critique" on which he was commenting
The critique is *still* posted verbatim above, you utter fool.
- "the same" is a trifle unspecific - this is all just predictable carping and self-advertising.
Self-advertising is what CSIRO, Parkes, and IEEE specialise in.
John Sarkissian in particular has a long history of lying about HSK that
apparently continues even after he posted the article linked below. The
engineers and operators from HSK have been fighting his lies for
decades. Me, I'm just pointing people to factual sources and folk who
know what they're talking about.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:dd1c3537-ccea-4f2e-8925-40faf6a49537@googlegroups.com:
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.
Wrong again. There were two competing design proposals for the
Apollo guidance computer. One was developed at Draper Labs, based
on NOR gate ICs. The other was an IBM proposal using discrete
semiconductor technology, similar to what went into military ICBMs
and the Saturn V. It was close, the IBM design had the advantage
that it was proven and no one was saying that it could not work.
NASA decided to go with the Draper design.
It was built by Raytheon. Just like I said it was.
Weight was a MAIN consideration as it has always been with every
space vehicle.
4000 IBMers worked on the Apollo Program. They were on the ground,On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 7:35:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:dd1c3537-ccea-4f2e-8925-40faf6a49537@googlegroups.com:
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.
Wrong again. There were two competing design proposals for the
Apollo guidance computer. One was developed at Draper Labs,
based on NOR gate ICs. The other was an IBM proposal using
discrete semiconductor technology, similar to what went into
military ICBMs and the Saturn V. It was close, the IBM design
had the advantage that it was proven and no one was saying that
it could not work. NASA decided to go with the Draper design.
It was built by Raytheon. Just like I said it was.
Designed by and built by are not necessarily the same thing. And
in this case they are not. The Apollo guidance computer was
designed by Draper Labs and built by Raytheon. BTW, where are the
cites for the designs other that that one and the IBM one that you
claim existed? Of course there are no cites, because those were
the only two proposals.
Weight was a MAIN consideration as it has always been with every
space vehicle.
No one claimed otherwise. What you claimed was that it could not
have been done with a discrete transistor design. That's not
true, the IBM proposal that used discrete devices proved that it
was possible. Similar IBM designs were used in Titan and Saturn V
and IBM could have won, no one was saying it was impossible
because of weight.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:8aab75f2-8ca1-4ba9-8786-0a2ff99cb9ad@googlegroups.com:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 11:11:51 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:d75ce3b1-7916-4d51-bde0-9635d1eb87be@googlegroups.com:
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."
It is true.
No, it's a lie. At the time the Apollo program began, new
computers had been using transistors, not tubes, for a long time.
Companies like IBM, Sperry Rand, DEC....
So what, you fucking idiot? They were also STILL using the tube
based machines. Get a clue, dumbfuck.
A heavy computer was not an option. Wake the fuck up.
No shit Sherlock. So why did you bring up tubes when computers
for everything from commercial application to military were
already using transistors?
Yes... using transistors in computers that STILL took up entire
rows of racks full of gear. WAKE UP. And they were also STILL using
tube hardware as well. Entire floors of buildings and environmental
controls were required.
You brought it up because you're
wrong, always wrong.
You are blind because of your lame obsessions and this is one of
them.
Oh and that included the current crop of 'solid state' versions
back then.
That's a lie as evidenced by the use of discrete transistor
computers for the Titan ICBMs and the Saturn V guidance systems.
Even the missiles that did end up with IC chips still had huge
discrete wired sections. The mercury program used the Titan II.
Guess what guidance chips it incorporated?
You are truly clueless.
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."
You get hung up on stupid shit and think it makes you look
smart.
You fail, child.
It was your stupidity, not mine or anyone else here. Even your
butt buddy Bill has told you that you're wrong.
"butt buddy"? You do know that if I tried, I could easily find
you, right?
Guess what you'll end up with shoved up your ass. I'll give you a
int as to what, so you can google it.
It is an overbore of 0.80 inches.
In fact IBM, Sperry Rand, DEC, etc were producing computers
using transistors when the Apollo program started.
Room sized business computers were not an option. You need to
wake
the fuck up, child.
Not just larger business computers, but also the computers for the
Titan and Saturn V guidance systems, designed and supplied by IBM.
You are clueless.
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.
There were more players considered than just those, dipshit.
Sure, a few posts ago you thought computers were still using
vacuum tubes at the start of the Apollo program. So much for
who's the dipshit, dipshit.
I did not "think" anything. Tube based computers, as well as the
newer machines were used. They did not design themselves, dipshit.
The two were evaluated and hotly debated.
Oh boy! "hotly debated"! Wow.
No one was saying the
IBM design could not be used,
Plenty were. In fact they got tossed early on.
That's a lie, which is why you can't supply any names or
specifics, while I can.
The Mercury mission was atop an Atlas rocket.
The Gemini missions were atop Titan II specials.
That bird has an IC chip in it. Not from IBM.
in fact it was favored by many
because it was a proven design,
Not for mission guidance it wasn't.
It was proven capable and reliable for guiding the Titan ICBM.
And got tossed with the advent of the Titan II. Ooops.
And it was chosen and used in the Saturn V, dipshit. Both were
IBM supplied, using discrete semiconductors. (not vacuum tubes)
I have seen (military) tubes smaller than a pinky finger.
while ICs were new and uncertain.
ICs were non existent and were custom made for the purpose.
Wrong again, always wrong. Kilby and Noyce had both
independently built the first ICs in 1959.
As if I need a primer on it from a fat assed google dope like you.
4000 IBMers worked on the Apollo Program. They were on the
ground,
programming the predecessors to the first mainframe computers, and
then also on the first mainframe computers. The Army, Air Force
and NASA bought them. They were the fastest being made by IBM.
They took up entire rooms and had miles/tons of interconnection
wiring.
The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.
They led the way in missile guidance at the time.
https://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/digital-logic/12/278
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 12:26:35 +0000 (UTC),
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highland_snip_technology.com> wrote in
news:h12cjehoob584530v8aj1jctbbhmu84ksa@4ax.com:
NASA's budget is now 21 billion. We could do some serious space
science and aeronautics if we canned the absurd manned flight
programs.
We ARE doing serious space science. That is what the ISS is for.
The "science" in ISS is mostly silly make-work stuff. None of it needs
a human present. We could grow bean sprouts in zero-G without people
there to supervise.
I don't know of any scientific or practical successes. Do you?
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:8e572cca-4843-4b28-9780-51d9abcb499b@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 7:35:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:dd1c3537-ccea-4f2e-8925-40faf6a49537@googlegroups.com:
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.
Wrong again. There were two competing design proposals for the
Apollo guidance computer. One was developed at Draper Labs,
based on NOR gate ICs. The other was an IBM proposal using
discrete semiconductor technology, similar to what went into
military ICBMs and the Saturn V. It was close, the IBM design
had the advantage that it was proven and no one was saying that
it could not work. NASA decided to go with the Draper design.
It was built by Raytheon. Just like I said it was.
Designed by and built by are not necessarily the same thing. And
in this case they are not. The Apollo guidance computer was
designed by Draper Labs and built by Raytheon. BTW, where are the
cites for the designs other that that one and the IBM one that you
claim existed? Of course there are no cites, because those were
the only two proposals.
Weight was a MAIN consideration as it has always been with every
space vehicle.
No one claimed otherwise. What you claimed was that it could not
have been done with a discrete transistor design. That's not
true, the IBM proposal that used discrete devices proved that it
was possible. Similar IBM designs were used in Titan and Saturn V
and IBM could have won, no one was saying it was impossible
because of weight.
4000 IBMers worked on the Apollo Program. They were on the ground,
programming the predecessors to the first mainframe computers, and
then also on the first mainframe computers. The Army, Air Force and
NASA bought them. They were the fastest being made by IBM. They
took up entire rooms and had miles/tons of interconnection wiring.
The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:8e572cca-4843-4b28-9780-51d9abcb499b@googlegroups.com:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 7:35:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:dd1c3537-ccea-4f2e-8925-40faf6a49537@googlegroups.com:
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.
Wrong again. There were two competing design proposals for the
Apollo guidance computer. One was developed at Draper Labs,
based on NOR gate ICs. The other was an IBM proposal using
discrete semiconductor technology, similar to what went into
military ICBMs and the Saturn V. It was close, the IBM design
had the advantage that it was proven and no one was saying that
it could not work. NASA decided to go with the Draper design.
It was built by Raytheon. Just like I said it was.
Designed by and built by are not necessarily the same thing. And
in this case they are not. The Apollo guidance computer was
designed by Draper Labs and built by Raytheon. BTW, where are the
cites for the designs other that that one and the IBM one that you
claim existed? Of course there are no cites, because those were
the only two proposals.
Weight was a MAIN consideration as it has always been with every
space vehicle.
No one claimed otherwise. What you claimed was that it could not
have been done with a discrete transistor design. That's not
true, the IBM proposal that used discrete devices proved that it
was possible. Similar IBM designs were used in Titan and Saturn V
and IBM could have won, no one was saying it was impossible
because of weight.
4000 IBMers worked on the Apollo Program. They were on the ground,
programming the predecessors to the first mainframe computers, and
then also on the first mainframe computers. The Army, Air Force and
NASA bought them. They were the fastest being made by IBM. They
took up entire rooms and had miles/tons of interconnection wiring.
The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.
They led the way in missile guidance at the time.
Somone is still "using" a 1960 Ford pickup. Does that mean it's
correct to say that Ford is only capable of that technology?
Sure, there were still older IBM computers running, being used,
but what IBM was building and selling at the time of the start of
the Apollo program was based on transistors, not tubes. We were
talking about what was available for a NEW computer, not what was
built more than a decade earlier.