Google-apper
Hovedmeny

Post a Comment On: Ken Shirriff's blog

"The core memory inside a Saturn V rocket's computer"

5 Comments -

1 – 5 of 5
Blogger EmperorGoogol said...

I was just now watching a video on the same thing on Smarter Everyday 2 channel where Luke Talley was explaining these things. It's awesome time for me to have a read up on this. Thanks a lot Ken. Your timing couldn't have been better.

March 4, 2020 at 8:43 AM

Anonymous John S said...

Another fascinating article, bravo! But I do have some questions and comments.

First, is there any discussion of why the AGC went with wirewrap, while the LVDC went with a 14 layer board. That does seem like a huge task to correctly layout the board, go through tapeout and then actually build it. The wirewrap would seem to be simpler to tweak, or make changes more quickly.

Was the LVDC building upon IBM's experience with laying out multilayer boards with the S/360 (and earlier systems) when they built this? Or was it more of just a re-packaging project since the actual memory modules were probably already designed and debugged, but needed to be built in reasonably large numbers.

It looks like one LVDC took eight modules, and with 15+ apollo launches and ground test, development and other needs, they probably built quite a number of these, versus the number of AGCs and their modules that were built. It would be interesting to compare production runs.

The next big question is the serial LVDC processor architecture versus the parallel design of the AGC processor architecture. Are there other serial decode based designs that were the predecessors of the LVDC, either inside IBM, or elsewhere? That would be a fascinating discussion and history lesson.

It's interesting to see how over time the serial versus parallel battle plays out in various designs. I'm more familiar with the RLL/MFM/IDE -> SATA change from parallel to serial disk controller technologies. Serial is easier to make fast, but parallel is easier to scale. For some values of scale, though the timing can get hairy.

Anyway, thanks for doing this, so darn instructive!
John

March 6, 2020 at 3:33 PM

Blogger Ken Shirriff said...

John S: I believe the LVDC was heavily influenced by IBM's S/360 technology. For instance, the ULD modules were similar to SLT modules, but packaged differently. So they probably used IBM's printed-circuit board expertise for these boards. The LVDC core planes were similar but not identical to the S/360 Model 50 core planes. A PCB saves a lot of space compared to wirewrap. but as you mention it's not as flexible. The S/360 used a mixture of PCB and wirewrap, which helped with field updates. As far as a serial vs parallel processor, there were various other serial processors used for aerospace, presumably for weight reasons. Some examples are the Arma Micro D, dD17B and Magic 321. Another important influence on the LVDC was IBM's Gemini computer, which was also serial.

March 6, 2020 at 6:21 PM

Anonymous John T. said...

Those MSI chips are very likely space qualified mil-spec 54-series logic gates. Consulting my real-live paper-bound Second Edition of the TI TTL Data Book, I see that the 54-series devices had different pinouts, in that the VCC and GND pins are not at the corners. All of the 14-pin 54-series parts had VCC on pin 4 and GND on pin 11, vs. 14 and 7 respectively for the 74-series brethren. I can see that by the power and ground buses that connect to pins 4 and 11.

It's likely they also had some Delco-specific part number stamped on each device. They did that anyway with their automotive electronics, so it's not surprising you can't find any info on those components. Besides, space qualification is another layer of expense on top of mil certification. The paperwork involved in traceability is enormous, practically requiring some kind of form-filling whenever someone even looks at one of the devices. So custom part numbering would make things easier for them in any case.

March 23, 2020 at 8:21 AM

Blogger Pedro147 said...

Hi Ken thanks for another great post. I hate to be pushy but I was not sure that you would see or possibly reply to a question I just asked on your post about the one-wire protocol and the Magsafe connector. I just thought that I could draw your attention to that question by contacting you via this very recent blog article so please excuse my forward approach and thanks for your time Pedro147 (Peter Newman). The question was on this blog article http://www.righto.com/2013/06/teardown-and-exploration-of-magsafe.html

April 2, 2020 at 3:42 AM

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot