America's biggest mistake

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

I've added that to the list of other threats you've made online.
Keep it up and I;ll take it to the police. You really need to get
some help.

Make another retarded, homophobe remark, and I'll leave a bag of
burning shit on your doorstep, and knock on your door with a 5 pound
sledge. Then I'll pop a GoPro in the hole that makes, and take a vid
of your fat ass running around like a stuck pig while I declare "Here's
Johnny!"

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDpipB4yehk>

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-
29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Glad you asked. Titan II didn't use chips, it used the IBM designed
computer using discrete transistors that I previously told you about.

I'd be glad if you stopped breathing.

It did use chips. They were made by Fairchild.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Sure, you claimed that IBM was using tubes in it's computer
designs at the dawn of the Apollo program and you're calling me
blind?

You are blind they used all they had, and that included those.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

BS. The fact that IBM was supplying computers for Titan ICBMs
proves that wrong.

The control computers. The parts that stay on the ground, in the
silo, and at NORAD.

Titan guidance was by AC Spark Plug.

Titan II guidance was by Delco of GM and then Litton Industries.

IBM did not "supply" them. IBM designed and programmed them and
mil contractors manufactured them. They were inertial, which means
they had moving parts.

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:32:30 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-
29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Glad you asked. Titan II didn't use chips, it used the IBM designed
computer using discrete transistors that I previously told you about.


I'd be glad if you stopped breathing.

It did use chips. They were made by Fairchild.

That's a lie. I've provided the cites that show Titan II used guidance
computers from IBM which were built using discrete transistors, not ICs.

Here it is again, stupid:

"ASC-15 for Titan II

The first inertial guidance system for the Titan II was built by AC Spark Plug, and included an inertial measurement unit based in designs from Draper Labs at MIT and the ASC-15 computer designed and built by IBM in Owego, NY.. The first Titan II missile carrying this system was launched 16 March 1962. "


The ASC-15 (Advance System Controller Model 15) was a digital computer developed by International Business Machines (IBM) for use on the Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).[1][2] It was subsequently modified and used on the Titan III and Saturn I Block II launch vehicles.

Its principal function on these rockets was to make navigation calculations using data from inertial sensor systems. It also performed readiness checks before launch.[3] It was a digital serial processor using fixed-point data with 27-bit words. The storage was a drum memory. Electronic circuits were welded encapsulated modules, consisting of discrete resistors, transistors, capacitors, and other components welded together and encapsulated in a foam material. It was manufactured in the IBM plant at Owego, NY.[4] "


And again, even APOLLO used NOR gates not manufactured by Fairchild,
but from Philco Ford, which Fairchild had licensed to manufacture them.


Wrong, always wrong.

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Sure, you claimed that IBM was using tubes in it's computer
designs at the dawn of the Apollo program and you're calling me
blind?

You are blind they used all they had, and that included those.

We were talking about what technology was going into APOLLO stupid.
Not about the installed base of computers in the world.

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:30:37 AM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

BS. The fact that IBM was supplying computers for Titan ICBMs
proves that wrong.

The control computers. The parts that stay on the ground, in the
silo, and at NORAD.

Wrong, always wrong. Even after I proved the cites for you. You really
are a hopeless case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASC-15

The ASC-15 (Advance System Controller Model 15) was a digital computer developed by International Business Machines (IBM) for use on the Titan II intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).[1][2] It was subsequently modified and used on the Titan III and Saturn I Block II launch vehicles.

Its principal function on these rockets was to make navigation calculations using data from inertial sensor systems. It also performed readiness checks before launch.[3] It was a digital serial processor using fixed-point data with 27-bit words. The storage was a drum memory. Electronic circuits were welded encapsulated modules, consisting of discrete resistors, transistors, capacitors, and other components welded together and encapsulated in a foam material. It was manufactured in the IBM plant at Owego, NY.[4]



The ASC-15, designed and built by IBM, using discrete transistors, was
on the rockets, not on the ground, stupid.

Titan guidance was by AC Spark Plug.

Titan II guidance was by Delco of GM and then Litton Industries.

IBM did not "supply" them. IBM designed and programmed them and
mil contractors manufactured them.

"ASC-15 for Titan II

The first inertial guidance system for the Titan II was built by AC Spark Plug, and included an inertial measurement unit based in designs from Draper Labs at MIT and the ASC-15 computer designed and built by IBM in Owego, NY.. The first Titan II missile carrying this system was launched 16 March 1962. "

>They were inertial, which means they had moving parts.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that Titan and Saturn V used guidance computers
designed and built by IBM from discrete transistor components. The moving parts
were the sensor inputs to the computer, stupid. And those guidance computers
were in those rockets, no matter how much you try to deny it.



Wrong, always wrong.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7246224f-3154-4544-b33f-460e2488ed75@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:10:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
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.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that IBM had designed and built
the guidance computer used in Titan ICBMs and in the Saturn V.
And that IBM was one of the two competing designs for the Apollo
guidance computer. All of these computers used discrete transistor
designs. It was a close call, the other design from Draper Labs
won. But no one said that the IBM design was not also viable.
Until you showed up, that is.





The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.


They were not "guidance chips", they were just basic NOR gates,
two of them in one IC.


They led the way in missile guidance at the time.

BS. Fairchild never lead the way in missile guidance, ever.

They were the first and only in fact at one time. Even before
computers, they made the radar transceiver control systems.
For the SAM Lark, for instance.

Then on to many other missiles... then on to the Minuteman II.

They
were a semiconductor company.

Yep.

And in fact, Fairchild was not the actual supplier of the NOR
chips used in Apollo at all.

Sure they were. 200,000 of them, in fact. The AGC for the LEM and
the command module had about three each made for them.

They licensed their design to Philco
Ford and they supplied them. Exactly why isn't clear.

Raytheon made the computer and hermetic chassis. Fairchild made
the chips. SOME of them got contracted out to other fab houses. It
was the beginning of having more than one vendor make the same thing
available for a mil assembly so that shortages could be lessened.

It became standard practice. The radio/computer on every US fighter
is made by ViaSat, and the laternate vendor that makes the exact same
product turnkey level is EADS.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/European-Aeronautic-Defence-and-
Space-Company

I made the RF amp assembly. It uses a paradigm known as SDR.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:8a4d78c3-54ce-42b7-b960-3d0e1e3fcb4f@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Sure, you claimed that IBM was using tubes in it's computer
designs at the dawn of the Apollo program and you're calling me
blind?

You are blind they used all they had, and that included those.

We were talking about what technology was going into APOLLO
stupid. Not about the installed base of computers in the world.

Nope. I never said anything about using tube based computrs in a
spaceship. I in fact stated that it is/was impossible.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:95312967-d590-4796-b39a-9657ebe7b1a0@googlegroups.com:

Wrong, always wrong. Even after I proved the cites for you. You
really are a hopeless case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASC-15

You are such a retarded fat fuck.

The site yo are looking for, punk... is this one:

<https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_chronology.html>

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:57:56 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:8a4d78c3-54ce-42b7-b960-3d0e1e3fcb4f@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Sure, you claimed that IBM was using tubes in it's computer
designs at the dawn of the Apollo program and you're calling me
blind?

You are blind they used all they had, and that included those.

We were talking about what technology was going into APOLLO
stupid. Not about the installed base of computers in the world.


Nope. I never said anything about using tube based computrs in a
spaceship. I in fact stated that it is/was impossible.

Yeah, what you stated was that IBM was building computers with tubes
at the time, which of course is wrong. Always wrong.

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 1:00:23 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:95312967-d590-4796-b39a-9657ebe7b1a0@googlegroups.com:

Wrong, always wrong. Even after I proved the cites for you. You
really are a hopeless case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASC-15

You are such a retarded fat fuck.

The site yo are looking for, punk... is this one:

https://www.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/space/space_chronology.html

Thanks for proving yourself wrong. From your cite above:

"1958
IBM develops the ASC-15 guidance computer for the United States Air Force Titan II missile computer. "


Exactly what I told you, stupid. And that ASC-15 was based on a discrete
transistor design. Not tubes, so IBM was clearly using transistors for
computers before NASA was formed like we told you. And second, it shows
that IBM had a working guidance system for missiles using transistors.
And as I have told you many times now, IBM proposed a similar design,
using transistors, for the Apollo guidance system.

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:57:56 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:8a4d78c3-54ce-42b7-b960-3d0e1e3fcb4f@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:31:24 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:3b4e690d-8b4d-4f7a-aec7-29b2c25a3a4e@googlegroups.com:

Sure, you claimed that IBM was using tubes in it's computer
designs at the dawn of the Apollo program and you're calling me
blind?

You are blind they used all they had, and that included those.

We were talking about what technology was going into APOLLO
stupid. Not about the installed base of computers in the world.


Nope. I never said anything about using tube based computrs in a
spaceship. I in fact stated that it is/was impossible.

What you actually stated was that at the time of the Apollo program,
IBM was still using tubes. Which of course was wrong. Always wrong.

 

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:28:51 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7246224f-3154-4544-b33f-460e2488ed75@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:10:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
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.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that IBM had designed and built
the guidance computer used in Titan ICBMs and in the Saturn V.
And that IBM was one of the two competing designs for the Apollo
guidance computer. All of these computers used discrete transistor
designs. It was a close call, the other design from Draper Labs
won. But no one said that the IBM design was not also viable.
Until you showed up, that is.





The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.


They were not "guidance chips", they were just basic NOR gates,
two of them in one IC.


They led the way in missile guidance at the time.

BS. Fairchild never lead the way in missile guidance, ever.

They were the first and only in fact at one time.

BS, lies and more BS. Having started by claiming that IBM computers
used tubes at the time of Apollo, now you just divert off into the wilderness.
The simple fact is computers were already being made using discrete
transistors at the time the Apollo program began. For the guidance computer
two competing designs were considered. One was IBM, which proposed a design
based on the transistor based computers already being used in Titan rockets
and later used in Saturn V for the moon shot. The other proposal was from
Draper Labs, using a design using some of the first ICs, simple NOR gates.
Both were considered viable, but the final decision chose the Draper design.
And while Fairchild came up with the NOR gate design, the actual chips used
were apparently fabbed by Philco Ford, who had licensed the chip design from
Fairchild. Those are the facts. Fairchild was not involved in designing
the guidance system. Following that BS logic, then Intel "designed"
everything that one of their chips goes into, eg an industrial robot
or satellite.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:9dcb0a11-27fa-40dd-a57c-
6e727e6c3c0f@googlegroups.com:

> Exactly what I told you, stupid.

Yes, you are stupid. Because as I said, it had Fairchild chips in
it.

So not 100% discrete.

 

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d6352223-7038-4f24-bc3c-
018777a84861@googlegroups.com:

BS, lies and more BS. Having started by claiming that IBM
computers
used tubes at the time of Apollo,

No. I did not claim that "IBM computers used tubes at the time".

The statement was that tube type computers were in use at the time
and they were. And that is regardless that they were producing solid
state machines. They were still selling and customers were still
using tube type machines. That included NASA. They ALSO bought some
of the solid state machines. Both the Army and the NACA used them,
and subsequently so when the NACA became the NASA.

Your mother lied when she said you exited her birth canal, when it
is decidedly evident that you exited her descending colon. She
should be put into prison.

 

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:48:41 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:d6352223-7038-4f24-bc3c-
018777a84861@googlegroups.com:

BS, lies and more BS. Having started by claiming that IBM
computers
used tubes at the time of Apollo,

No. I did not claim that "IBM computers used tubes at the time".

The statement was that tube type computers were in use at the time
and they were. And that is regardless that they were producing solid
state machines.

No, it's not regardless of the fact that IBM was producing solid state
computers. Let's review:

I posted:

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.

And you replied with:

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.

Nuff said about what you meant. Fact is that at the time the Apollo
program began, IBM was already building computers based on discrete
transistors. As cited, IBM had already built the ASC-15 guidance computer
for the Titan II ROCKET, using transistors. And IBM was the competing design
choice for the Apollo guidance computer, their design was similar to the
ASC-15, using transistors. IBM also supplied the guidance computer for
the Saturn V, using discrete transistors. So, the allegation that IBM was
"using tubes" and that would not make it to the move, is wrong.



They were still selling and customers were still
> using tube type machines.

So, if we're having a discussion on Ford's capability with current
technology in 2019, it would be correct to say that Ford can't supply
a 2019 car, because some people are still driving a 1975 Pinto?



That included NASA. They ALSO bought some

of the solid state machines. Both the Army and the NACA used them,
and subsequently so when the NACA became the NASA.

Your mother lied when she said you exited her birth canal, when it
is decidedly evident that you exited her descending colon. She
should be put into prison.

You're always so angry because you're always so wrong.

 

On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 9:40:52 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:

trader4@optonline.net wrote in news:9dcb0a11-27fa-40dd-a57c-
6e727e6c3c0f@googlegroups.com:

Exactly what I told you, stupid.

Yes, you are stupid. Because as I said, it had Fairchild chips in
it.

So not 100% discrete.

No idea what you're even talking about, because you've cut out all context.
But if you're claiming that Fairchild chips were in the Apollo guidance
computer that actually went to the moon, it's wrong. Those chips which were
simple NOR gates, while initially designed and built by Fairchild,
were actually fabbed and supplied by Philco Ford for the computers that
went to the moon. That doesn't
lessen the importance of Fairchild and the importance of Noyce's
co-invention of the IC, but from what I've seen and the cites I've provided, it's a historical fact that the actual ICs used were fabbed by Philco Ford.

 

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:28:51 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7246224f-3154-4544-b33f-460e2488ed75@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:10:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
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.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that IBM had designed and built
the guidance computer used in Titan ICBMs and in the Saturn V.
And that IBM was one of the two competing designs for the Apollo
guidance computer. All of these computers used discrete transistor
designs. It was a close call, the other design from Draper Labs
won. But no one said that the IBM design was not also viable.
Until you showed up, that is.





The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.


They were not "guidance chips", they were just basic NOR gates,
two of them in one IC.


They led the way in missile guidance at the time.

BS. Fairchild never lead the way in missile guidance, ever.

They were the first and only in fact at one time.

BS, lies and more BS. Having started by claiming that IBM computers
used tubes at the time of Apollo, now you just divert off into the wilderness.
The simple fact is computers were already being made using discrete
transistors at the time the Apollo program began. For the guidance computer
two competing designs were considered. One was IBM, which proposed a design
based on the transistor based computers already being used in Titan rockets
and later used in Saturn V for the moon shot. The other proposal was from
Draper Labs, using a design using some of the first ICs, simple NOR gates.
Both were considered viable, but the final decision chose the Draper design.
And while Fairchild came up with the NOR gate design, the actual chips used
were apparently fabbed by Philco Ford, who had licensed the chip design from
Fairchild. Those are the facts. Fairchild was not involved in designing
the guidance system. Following that BS logic, then Intel "designed"
everything that one of their chips goes into, eg an industrial robot
or satellite.

Even today when selecting components for space application it is very
important to have a long reliability history for each component type
before selecting one type. For this reason, systems used in a pace
applications look "old fashioned" even before the launch.

In the days when ICs were young, there was not much long term
reliability data so large batches of a component must be subjected to
harsher than expected conditions to get some accelerated reliability
data.

While reading some AGC reliability papers, I got the impression that
there were two main reason while only dual 3 input RTL NOR gates were
used.

1.) Having multiple types of logic chips would require accelerated
reliability testing for each type. Now you only needed to test one
type.

2.) Those NOR gates were available from multiple sources, so in
addition to normal second source considerations, you could get
reliability for multiple batches from different sources.

So by no means the dual 3 input NOR gate was not the only logic chip
on the market during the AGC design phase.


The only other chip type used in AGC was an analog differential
amplifier used as the magnetic memory sense amplifier.

 

On Friday, July 26, 2019 at 11:54:30 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jul 2019 18:49:24 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:28:51 PM UTC-4, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
trader4@optonline.net wrote in
news:7246224f-3154-4544-b33f-460e2488ed75@googlegroups.com:

On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:10:00 AM UTC-4,
DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
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.

Irrelevant of course to the fact that IBM had designed and built
the guidance computer used in Titan ICBMs and in the Saturn V.
And that IBM was one of the two competing designs for the Apollo
guidance computer. All of these computers used discrete transistor
designs. It was a close call, the other design from Draper Labs
won. But no one said that the IBM design was not also viable.
Until you showed up, that is.





The computer contained guidance chips made by fairchild in the
guidance computers of both the Command Module and the LEM.


They were not "guidance chips", they were just basic NOR gates,
two of them in one IC.


They led the way in missile guidance at the time.

BS. Fairchild never lead the way in missile guidance, ever.

They were the first and only in fact at one time.

BS, lies and more BS. Having started by claiming that IBM computers
used tubes at the time of Apollo, now you just divert off into the wilderness.
The simple fact is computers were already being made using discrete
transistors at the time the Apollo program began. For the guidance computer
two competing designs were considered. One was IBM, which proposed a design
based on the transistor based computers already being used in Titan rockets
and later used in Saturn V for the moon shot. The other proposal was from
Draper Labs, using a design using some of the first ICs, simple NOR gates.
Both were considered viable, but the final decision chose the Draper design.
And while Fairchild came up with the NOR gate design, the actual chips used
were apparently fabbed by Philco Ford, who had licensed the chip design from
Fairchild. Those are the facts. Fairchild was not involved in designing
the guidance system. Following that BS logic, then Intel "designed"
everything that one of their chips goes into, eg an industrial robot
or satellite.

Even today when selecting components for space application it is very
important to have a long reliability history for each component type
before selecting one type. For this reason, systems used in a pace
applications look "old fashioned" even before the launch.

I agree. Maybe you can explain that to DL. It looks to me like what you
outline happened. The Apollo guidance computer design was nailed down
early on, using Fairchild NOR ICs, they stuck with the design because
they needed a stable, reliable design that worked. But by
the time the actual computers that went to the moon were built, Fairchild
had moved on to newer, better chips and it was Philco Ford that fabbed
the NOR gates used and I'd suspect that was probably their only customer
for them by then. It's ironic, first NASA used something bold, new and
risky, then ultimately they used something old and obsolete. That's
how fast the industry was moving and it hasn't changed since. IDK
what the exact time period was, ~8 years maybe? What's the life cycle
of many digital chips today? About the same or less.

In the days when ICs were young, there was not much long term
reliability data so large batches of a component must be subjected to
harsher than expected conditions to get some accelerated reliability
data.

While reading some AGC reliability papers, I got the impression that
there were two main reason while only dual 3 input RTL NOR gates were
used.

1.) Having multiple types of logic chips would require accelerated
reliability testing for each type. Now you only needed to test one
type.

2.) Those NOR gates were available from multiple sources, so in
addition to normal second source considerations, you could get
reliability for multiple batches from different sources.

So by no means the dual 3 input NOR gate was not the only logic chip
on the market during the AGC design phase.

Agree, even more so depending on what period you call the "design phase".
TI introduced the 7400 series in 1964, for example.

The only other chip type used in AGC was an analog differential
amplifier used as the magnetic memory sense amplifier.