-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Kaiser <ckaiser(a)oa.ptloma.edu>
>::Greetings Dyslexia of Borg, I am Typo from the planet Vulcan.
>Hmm, my sister and I came up with
Damn, you figured it out... I'm your long lost sister...
;)
Well, if you mean the rescue I think you mean, it's actually in the Indian
Ocean. That's where the Challenger went down. The fuel tank and solids
(booster rockets) went down near Florida, but the Challenger went down on
the far side of Africa if memory serves me.
I, along with others, had the job of analyzing the potential failure modes
in the engine controller in the wake of the Challenger accident. It's
quite an interesting device, considering it's made of really old and simple
TTL logic with plated wire memory (faster, though not much, than core of
that generation). It had no stack, and therefore a different way of
"calling" a subroutine, requiring you to have your program store in
read/write memory. This ultimately meant that flaws masked by the
redundancy of the system could become "inherited" from one mission to the
next. There were other pitfalls as well.
Dick
----------
> From: Sam Ismail <dastar(a)ncal.verio.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Who invented the internet?
> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 11:53 AM
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > It's somewhat divergent from the current topic, but it might interest
some
> > to know that the Honeywell '516 is the engine control computer which
was
> > still in use on the space shuttle at the time of the Challenger
accident.
> > There were two, one redundant, for each engine, of which I believe
there
> > were three.
>
> Do I sense a potential rescue mission somewhere off the coast of Florida?
>
> Sellam Alternate e-mail:
dastar(a)siconic.com
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> Always hasslin' the man.
>
> Coming in 1999: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0
> See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
> [Last web site update: 02/15/99]
On Wednesday, February 17, 1999 3:10 PM, Michael Grigoni
[SMTP:msg@computerpro.com] wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> PIC has quoted price and availability for the two HP-85 Calculator belts
> as follows:
>
>
> > EPS0175A125N $1.71/ea Stock
> >
> >
> > EPS0080A250N $2.33/ea Stock
>
>
> They have a $50.00 minimum order. Who all wants to join in an order
> large enough to justify the minimum?
>
> Michael Grigoni
> Cybertheque Museum
>
Michael,
Are those belts problematic?
I have a real nice HP-85 here but, have never really used it. If the belts
are likely to deterioriate or fail, I wouldn't mind having an extra set.
BTW: If anyone has an extra set of manuals for a HP85, I could sure use
them. Of course, I'm willing to pay a _fair_ price. Are there any good
on-line resources for HP85 programming and operation?
Steve Robertson - <steverob(a)hotoffice.com>
I am repeating my offer for a free C-64/C-128(D) -compatible 9-pin
dot-matrix printer, an Okidata 120, available for free to anyone in the
Boston, MA area. I am also willing to ship it within the continental USA
for the price of shipping. It goes to the thrift store this weekend.
Thanks.
--Max Eskin (max82(a)surfree.com)
I'm not at all certain about any of the mission details regarding the
January 1986 (final) Challenger mission. I will yield to your obviously
more accurate and current information. Having known that I'm gradually
going soft in the head for some time, I'm not surprised or concerned that
don't remember precise details about the final Challenger mission.
I am quite certain, however, that the documents and schematics which were
given to me as part of a FMEA/CIL team, which was a part of the NASA
"shuttle-return-to-flight" mission the following fall, were relating to the
Honeywell 516. These were not the main computers, of which there are
several, but only the engine controllers, which are configured as redundant
pairs, one for each engine. There was talk of a plan on the table at the
time to replace these with something smaller and lighter, using
semiconductor memory and having other features, but the one which we spent
half a year studying, at great expense to the taxpayer, and which was
purported to be used as that controller was definitely the Honeywell 516.
Perhaps there were other more popular models of that number, but the one on
the shuttles at that time were all of this type.
These were NOT the main computers on the shuttle, but rather the dedicated
main engine controllers. The IBM numbers to which you refer do sound to me
like the main computers. Analysis of the engine controllers, however, is
what our assigned task was, and that's what I remember. I don't suppose
they would have had 50 or so of us working for six months on something that
wasn't involved. It's conceivable, however, that there are several
versions of this processor. It doesn't seem reasonable that they would
have used two of a processor weighing what you attribute to the 516. 2.5
cu meters, however, is a small room, and sounds like approximately a 6'
rack cabinet, or maybe even a pair. Are you perhaps including a bit of
packaging hardware? What's used to control the engine is the processor.
The technology is of the same vintage as the DEC PDP-8's I've seen, with
hand-wired backplanes and built from ttl-msi. This one used plated wire
memory, since that was a mite faster (1 us) than the core of the time(1.2
us).
Let's see . . . the IBM AP-101S uses 1/40 cu Meter . . . that's a bit less
than a cu. ftm 30 kg and 550 watts. . . . seems reasonable. That they
later used one of its IOP's to replace the old model in use on the
Challenger and other shuttles at the time seems reasonable as well.
Unlike the defense industry and certainly unlike the commercial computer
industry, the domain of flight hardware is controlled by "proven-reliable"
hardware, so the "current" technology of the time, and the shuttle was
designed in the late '60's and built in the '70's, was not the technology
of choice. What's more, the engines in use in the early-mid '80's were
hand-tweaked hangar queens, not some sort of production hardware. The
controllers used "proven" software, which reflected all the caveats of the
NASA policy of the time. It's not always the latest technology that you
want on your 2-billion-dollar aircraft, but rather the most reliable that
does the job.
Dick
----------
> From: Eric Smith <eric(a)brouhaha.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: [OT] Space shuttle explosions and computers (was Re: Who
invented the internet?)
> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 9:49 PM
>
> Allison wrote:
> > FYI the speed attained at
> > that point is some 3600mph far from orbital velocity.
>
> I'm not sure how to parse that. Are you saying that it was traveling at
> 3600 MPH, which is far from orbital velocity (i.e., a missing comma), or
> that it was travelling at 3600 MPH less than orbital velocity?
>
> (In any case, the use of the word velocity is incorrect. Velocity is
> a vector, as I had drilled into me in Physics class.)
>
> The NASA reference I posted earlier claims:
> At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number
> of 1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally
> enveloped in the explosive burn.
>
> The best information I have suggests that the Space Shuttle does not
> use the Honeywell DDP-516 in any capacity, and that engine control is
performed
> by the some of the IOP processors that are part of the IBM AP-101S
> computers. The entire AP-101S, including both the GPC and IOP, occupies
> about 0.025 cubic meters, masses about 30 Kg, and consumes about 550 W.
> A DDP-516 occupies about 2.5 cubic meters, masses about 250 Kg, and
consumes
> over 1000 W.
>
> The AP-101S replaced an earlier AP-101B computer that was twice the size.
> Anybody know where I can find one for my collection? :-)
I guess we'll have to see what information is available on the net about
that January 1986 event. I do seem to recall that the flight was about 2
minutes 10+ seconds underway when the ship hit the fan, so to speak. The
entire trip into orbit only required about 8.5 minutes, so they were a fair
piece of the way along.
My recollection is that they were searching off Florida for the boosters,
but in the Indian Ocean to recover the shuttle and the bodies. There was a
lot of talk about the 8 minutes or so that it took for the shuttle to hit
the water after things went bad. I could be mistaken, of course. It
wouldn't be the first time . . .
Dick
----------
> From: Ward D. Griffiths III <gram(a)cnct.com>
> To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
> Subject: Re: Who invented the internet?
> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 1999 3:48 PM
>
> On Wed, 17 Feb 1999, Richard Erlacher wrote:
>
> > Well, if you mean the rescue I think you mean, it's actually in the
Indian
> > Ocean. That's where the Challenger went down. The fuel tank and
solids
> > (booster rockets) went down near Florida, but the Challenger went down
on
> > the far side of Africa if memory serves me.
>
> The Challenger was nowhere near suborbital when the explosion took
> place. Everything landed off the coast of Florida.
> --
> Ward Griffiths
> "the timid die just like the daring; and if you don't take the plunge
then
> you'll just take the fall" Michael Longcor
Doug wrote:
> I've heard that UCLA hosted Arpanet node #1 (I've also heard that BBN was
> supposed to host node #0, but their IMP didn't work), but I've never heard
> of Kleinrock....
There's a very entertaining and informative article by "Mr. Protocol" in
SunExpert magazine Feb 98 entitled "Mr. Protocol Looks Back" at
<http://sun.expert.com/C1/SE.C1.FEB.98.pdf>. Well worth reading, all about
early Internet history and the machines in play. (Check out the rest of Mr.
P's archives at the parent link[s]!).
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ Robert Lund | "So many good ones, and so many bad ones; +
+ lundo(a)interport.net | that's what you get for trying." +
+ New York City | Dutch Schultz, last words +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I just went to Len's homepage, and from what I can tell, based on the research
and reading that I've done, the story as put forth in his bio is accurate. Licklider
had forseen a worldwide (actually, galactic) network where information was
accessible to anyone, anywhere. Kleinrock did describe how packet switching
would work in his dissertation. Plus, the UCLA team was under his command.
ARPA was under Bob Taylor (later to run PARC), but Taylor's job was to
assemble the people to make it happen, and Kleinrock was one of them.
If you get a chance to see the PBS series, Kleinrock is interviewed several
times. You probably don't know his name because most of the guys from
ARPA and PARC are unknowns. They are responsible for inventing most of
today's computer technology, but other guys were much better at exploiting
their inventions and assuming credit for them (not to mention anybill's name.....)
Paul Braun
NerdWare -- The History of the PC and the Nerds who brought it to you.
nerdware(a)laidbak.com
www.laidbak.com/nerdware
> Does anyone know of any early (pre-1990) computers, other than the early
> Toshibas, that used the parallel port to access an external floppy drive
> (or other external storage device)? Thanks!
(-: Roger, that's a very foolish thing to say on Classiccmp. For startres:
An "Early" computer does _not_ mean "pre-1990". More like "pre-1960".
Lots of pre-1990 machines used a parallel port to talk to floppy disk
drives. HP and Commodore machines used HPIB/GPIB for example. And yes,
that was the printer port on those machines too.
Need I go on?
Philip. :-)
(I think someone else has already given a sensible answer, so I have no
qualms about posting the above)
