Well they were announced at the start of the 1970's and we had one of the first 360/165's in the UK. Later replaced by a 3081 in the 80's. We were what you might call early adopters. So end of the 70's sounds about right to me for the end of the 360 era as far as sales of new kit goes.
He is right though that space qualified chips lagged significantly behind the stuff that was available for terrestrial use. Apollo was using some quite elderly chip designs in the main computer hardware.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
It also ignores that fact that big guns typically use smokeless powder propellant aka cordite which is 30% nitroglycerine and 60% guncotton plus a few stabilisers.
-- Regards, Martin Brown
was
smokeless powder isn't that much higher energy density
Nonsense. The 360 line was announced in April of 1964. We used a
360/30 (?) and a 360/75 when I was in high school ('68). The first of the 370s came out in 1970. The 393x series came out next ('77) and was really the bastard child of the 370 and 308x (though the latter came out later). Bastard child because it used the 370 technology (a bit more dense and faster but still card-on-board) but had the 308x architecture. The 308x hardware (TCM) wasn't ready for prime time so the 303x was a "mid-life kicker". The 370 was getting long in the tooth and the 308x wasn't ready for prime time (announced in '80).As an aside, IIRC the 303x was pushed out in 18mos, from start of design to first customer ship.
Next was the ES9000 (1990) Then the E/Server (first CMOS) in 2000.
There were some much later models of some series, like the 360/85,
360/95, and 360/195 and the 370 MP and AP models (multiprocessor and attached processor.IBM also build the guidance computer for the Saturn 1B and Saturn 5 (really a 1B on top of a much bigger candle). IIRC it was a nuke sub sonar computer with some shake and bake improvements.
The Vikings and Voyagers were made by GE and Honeywell. How much further back?
Well, I designed one while at LeRC. It was coaxial; it used a hollow cylinder of carbon and a probe that was conelike.
It was to fire carbon onto a target; the researcher was interested in "diamondlike films" as diamond has unusual properties: good thermal comductivity but electrical insulation.
Previously he had proposed a slug throwning railgun driven by solar panels for deep space probe propulsion.
-- A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close.......................... Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
David Lesher wrote in news:qtupor$bfv$2 @reader2.panix.com:
I'd bet that would work. Especially for altitude adjustment. The slugs would burn up or 'bounce' away. But thier mass would allow for a push, albeit a small one.
Hey! Maybe put a slippery jacket on it, and seal it against a smooth bore and have an air blast fire off along with the rail push and get a bit more from the barrel length and seal.
Hell, they could go powder actuated at that point.
Quite a vibratory shock each time though.
Rockets work.
Maybe one day we will figure out what 'anti-gravity' is, or not so much what but how.
that seems like it would have less specific impulse than solar powered ion drive so probabaly a non-starter. Ion drive is basically the same thing except the projectiles are much smaller and move much faster.
-- Jasen.
Bill Sloman wrote in news:277aedfe-a73e-4292- snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
WTF do you think the top end of a space elevator is, dipshit?
It is EXACTLY THAT!
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
And how the f*ck does that translate into satellite station keeping, you putz?
It does not. Period.
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
The screw up is yours thinking I was referring to the space station.
I was referring to 'station keeping' which is a term related to objetcs in freefall orbit, you pathetic worm.
Really? What did you think you were talking about?
Where did the space elevator come up?
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
And why isn't the space-station in a freefall orbit? It's orbit is going to take a while to hit the ground if it isn't corrected from time to time, but between corrections it's in a freefall orbit.
With low thrust ion or plasma course correction thrusters, it's orbit could be being corrected a lot of the time, which does seem to be point which as escaped you.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
But nobody was talking about space elevators until you decided to claim that your silly claim was about space elevators (which don't happen to exist yet, and won't until we can make stronger cables than any you can buy now).
Nice try - full marks for ingenuity - but you've still got egg all over your face.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Read the thread.
That cable would have to be really strong to withstand collisions from any orbiting space debris crossing the equator. All low orbiting space debris (including the ISS) will cross the equator twice each orbit.
Better ask what he has been smoking all the time.
Why on earth would you think that I thought that you were referring to the space station?
The satellites that actually need station keeping keeping are the ones in synchronous orbits, which have to stay in much the same place over the earth's surface to do their jobs.
Your wittering on about cables and load transfers eventually clued me in to that fact that you were barking up the wrong tree - which wrong tree eventually became obvious.
There are lots of different "freefall orbits". Synchronous orbits are a member of that class, but they need more "station keeping" than most.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
I have. You may think you have, but you seem to need to read it again.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
On Friday, December 27, 2019 at 4:03:13 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com w rote:
that your silly claim was about space elevators (which don't happen to exis t yet, and won't until we can make stronger cables than any you can buy now ).
That's part of the problem, but if you calculate the strength to weight rat io required for a space elevator cable, nothing commercially available look s remotely practical. Bucky tubes are strong enough and light enough to be potentially suitable, but are long way from being commercially available.
your face.
Some people hate admitting that they have screwed up.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Duh, you stupid f*ck. That is EXACTLY what I said!
NOT ENOUGH. Time matters.
Shame your is not up yet.
Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
That is your problem. You never READ the thread, and YOU presume things, and chime in with stupid shit. YOU are the one mentioning satellites when I never did. And then you started this petty shit. The mistake was yours, interloper.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.