2871 posts of total bollocks seems sufficiently substantial to me...

hackenslash wrote:2871 posts of total bollocks seems sufficiently substantial to me...

Ahh, I see you have chosen to boldly go where no non sequitur has gone before!

Welcome to the debate. I believe this fairly states the bold claim The_Metartron put on the table:

If the fucking integrated circuit had not been developed for NASA, we wouldn't have to be putting up with your bullshit right now

By all means rational, help him defend his audacious claim.

So, what's up, John? That little problem of the Minuteman III D-37C guidance computer being built in1965 using ICs, two years after NASA's influence dropped the price from $1000 apiece to $25 apiece fucking with you?

The_Metatron wrote:So, what's up, John? That little problem of the Minuteman III D-37C guidance computer being built in1965 using ICs, two years after NASA's influence dropped the price from $1000 apiece to $25 apiece fucking with you?

What's up is that you have failed to adequately defend your claim:

The_Metatron wrote:Yeah, except it was developed for NASA. Get that through your head. You enjoy a life today that would not have happened this way were it not for NASA and the Apollo program.

That's enough of your bullshit that space exploration is somehow mis-prioritized.

Kennedy knew this. You still do not. Probably never will.

And I would rather avoid going down another red herring rat hole - which is what talking about Minuteman IIIs is. But perhaps this is a teaching moment.

You say:

That little problem of the Minuteman III D-37C guidance computer being built in1965 using ICs, two years after NASA's influence dropped the price from $1000 apiece to $25 apiece fucking with you?

Buuuuuuuuuut, why no love for the Minuteman II?

From the horses mouth:

http://www.ti.com/corp/docs/company/his ... al_ics.htm

Special ICs produced for Minuteman missile

Autonetics, a division of North American Aviation in California, held a major subcontract from Boeing on the Minuteman. TI had never been able to secure any business from the company. It took TI two years of determined efforts, including visits by IC inventor Jack Kilby and TI manager Charles Phipps, and Air Force support to convince Autonetics that integrated circuits held the key to success for the Minuteman before TI finally won its first contract at Autonetics for slightly more than $9 million.

The Minuteman II, with its extended range, was valued as an essential part of America�s strategic arsenal. Its new guidance computer, armed with more than 2,000 TI integrated circuits, was 50 percent lighter than its forerunners had been. It earmarked the integrated circuit as one of TI�s major breakthroughs. Just as it had been with the introduction of the transistor, the electronics business was on the verge of undergoing another rapid growth period.

At TI, the work had only begun. TI President Pat Haggerty, no longer concerned with marketing integrated circuits, was suddenly faced with the fact that TI could not make enough integrated circuits to fulfill the Autonetics orders. TI had seriously miscalculated the problem of designing so many custom circuits in such a short time. Complications arose in trying to handle some 19 different integrated circuit types, both analog and digital, for the Minuteman computer � an unprecedented task in integrated circuit development. Phipps recalls that from the spring 1963 until almost year-end, TI struggled with the manufacturing process.

Haggerty himself took charge of the production crisis, assuring Autonetics, �The next month or two will be critical, but I am more confident than ever that we will support your program adequately.� He realized that TI was paying the price of pioneering a new technology.

In September 1964, the Minuteman II was launched in a successful test flight from Cape Kennedy. TI received substantial follow-on contracts, and a 1965 Air Force decision to retrofit 800 earlier Minuteman missiles with integrated circuitry provided another $11 million in revenues for the company. The Minuteman III system, with improved warhead deployment and increased range, entered the silos in early 1970; the missiles contained large quantities of TI�s integrated circuits.

Haggerty later could proudly point out the Minuteman II guidance computer was half the weight, used less than half as many devices, and consumed about half as much power as its predecessor. The new guidance computer was a little more than 36 pounds, but its heart and soul, the integrated circuit, weighed only two and a half grams. That was only the beginning. Within a short time, TI was selling devices similar to those designed for the Minuteman missile in the commercial marketplace, helping to spawn a new industry. As Phipps commented, �The Minuteman program allowed us to get integrated circuit complexity under our belt.� Gene McFarland, a key marketing manager in the early integrated circuit years, added, �It also taught us about the learning curve and how to get our costs down.�

Now for the teaching moment:

By the kind of reasoning, you seem to me, to be using: I enjoy a life today that would not have happened this way without the Cold War and ICBM development and deployment. Heck, the team that decided to use Ic's in the Apollo guidance computer was put together and cut their teeth on ICBM guidance systems. And if I extrapolate this a bit further, we should open the purse strings and ramp up development of new methods of mass destruction so the world will have a brighter future.

No, John. You insist on that weapons connection, once more revealing in ignoring NASA's contributions to this, and many other technologies that indeed make your life better. As for the development of the integrated circuit, you also enjoy ignoring the timing of it. By 1963, NASA's demand for ICs for the Apollo program had pushed the price down by a factor of 40. Just about right on time for the Air Force and Autonetics to start using those much cheaper ICs to build the D-37C Minuteman guidance computer, which was fielded in 1965. Timing, John. Your conclusions are confounded by historical timing.

That's how it started.

Would the Air Force have had the budgetary clout to drive that industry as NASA did for the Apollo project? Could be. The US has spent $486 billion on manned spaceflight programs over the last 57 years. The DoD's budget for next year alone is over $495 billion. That's a sort of apples and oranges comparison, because not all of that DoD budget is for hardware or development, particularly of new technologies.

But likely, we would still have microcircuits if the Apollo program hadn't existed. Just not as quickly, I suppose.

Nevertheless, you make my point for me about what India has done. Instead of innovating by designing weapons systems, they are innovating by peaceful space exploration. The benefits of innovation are perfectly well known. We are back to where we started.

India did this on their own. They didn't buy a Thiokol rocket motor, or an old Delta booster rocket. They didn't use a Radio Shack communications network to track and control this probe from around the world. They made this stuff, John. They figured out how to do it, then did it.

This was a bad plan?

All you have to do is show how the Luddite Fallacy is false.

The_Metatron wrote:Nevertheless, you make my point for me about what India has done. Instead of innovating by designing weapons systems, they are innovating by peaceful space exploration. The benefits of innovation are perfectly well known. We are back to where we started.

India did this on their own. They didn't buy a Thiokol rocket motor, or an old Delta booster rocket. They didn't use a Radio Shack communications network to track and control this probe from around the world. They made this stuff, John. They figured out how to do it, then did it.

This was a bad plan?

They're doing the same thing that other, richer countries have already been doing. I'm sure that if they're starting from first principles they'll make some unique observations (but they're also treading on largely familiar ground), but if they're fundamentally just using tech that's been developed elsewhere and applying extremely (relatively) cheap Indian labor to it, I'm not really seeing the innovation beyond the notion that space exploration could perhaps be outsourced to poor-er countries if it wants to save money.

This seems great for Elon Musk, who I think is awesome. I'm not seeing the innovation beyond applying globalization to space exploration though. Maybe India could do some good for its economy by adding a space exploration component to it?

This seems like largely a vanity project to me. I see that there are some benefits as there often are in big investments like this, and particularly given the high-tech component to it, but I think a huge number of indians would have been better served by toilets and I see that as a huge opportunity cost that I don't see this program as making up for.

I don't see that it matters if other countries had done it. They did it themselves. The same way. To the same benefits.

I am quite sure you are underestimating the home-grown resources India had to develop to make this a reality. It's massive. We take many of these skills and capabilities for granted, but that is a mistake.

Just amuse yourself with a blank notebook and start writing down what you would have to learn to do what they did. Not simply learn how, but actually produce the things needed. Not just produce crap, but then integrating it all into a successful mission. You'll soon find that notebook is inadequate to even record the problems you will need to solve, let alone their possible solutions.

Most people have no concept of the complexity of an endeavor such as spaceflight.

The benefit to India is that every little thing that had to be done to support that mission was done by Indian people. Indian schools. Indian manufacturers. Every little thing.

Jesus, think of only the rocket motor bells. Do you have any idea of what metals those things are made? What alloy? How, exactly, would you go about figuring out how to make just that one thing, that one part of a rocket? Where would you get the ores? Smelt them? Alloy them in what proportions? How thick does it need to be? What shape, exactly? The answer to one question spawns a hundred new questions.

It boggles the mind.

Then, you'd have to consider what else could one do with that metallurgical prowess? What other problems would fall to that skill? The knock-on effects are where the money is made.

Lastly, you multiply what I just described by the hundreds and thousands of different problems that need to be solved to put the little probe into orbit around another planet.

I can think of a simpler exercise.

Do the same as above, only with a wheelbarrow. Solve all the problems required to make a simple wheelbarrow. No outsourcing. Rubber, wood, steel, bearings. How many people would you have to put to work just to make rubber tires?

It doesn't matter if others know how to make wheelbarrows already. The exercise is to figure out how, employ the people, get the stuff, and do it yourself.

The investment made in the research for space exploration has direct returns, even if you ignore the spin-offs. The PSLV (Polar satellite launch vechicle) run by ISRO has launched 35 foreign satellites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Sate ... ch_Vehicle

Again, I don't understand why it has to be either or. Should India stop all investments in pure sciences because there are no direct benefits?

The_Metatron wrote:I don't see that it matters if other countries had done it. They did it themselves. The same way. To the same benefits.

I am quite sure you are underestimating the home-grown resources India had to develop to make this a reality. It's massive. We take many of these skills and capabilities for granted, but that is a mistake.

Just amuse yourself with a blank notebook and start writing down what you would have to learn to do what they did. Not simply learn how, but actually produce the things needed. Not just produce crap, but then integrating it all into a successful mission. You'll soon find that notebook is inadequate to even record the problems you will need to solve, let alone their possible solutions.

Most people have no concept of the complexity of an endeavor such as spaceflight.

The benefit to India is that every little thing that had to be done to support that mission was done by Indian people. Indian schools. Indian manufacturers. Every little thing.

Jesus, think of only the rocket motor bells. Do you have any idea of what metals those things are made? What alloy? How, exactly, would you go about figuring out how to make just that one thing, that one part of a rocket? Where would you get the ores? Smelt them? Alloy them in what proportions? How thick does it need to be? What shape, exactly? The answer to one question spawns a hundred new questions.

It boggles the mind.

As I said, I see this either as something that they did from first principles, from scratch, or as something that they did largely using existing knowledge made cheap via the cost of Indian labor. It could be something in between, too.

Your comments suggest that it's more of a from-scratch thing, in which case I want to reiterate my criticism for that: they might be likely to make some novel observations but they're largely treading on familiar ground. It's impressive, but it seems like a waste relative to using existing knowledge and facilities.

For example, in regards to your questions regarding rocket motor bells: It's the same if I were to design an aircraft. I would ask the relevant professionals. For rocketry I would ask American or Russian or etc professionals in the field, and consult the existing literature. As it is, this isn't India's first space launch, it's their first Mars mission.

I don't really get the "India did it!" critique. It's good in an it-develops-their-human-capital sense, and I can see how the launch would be good for national pride, but I'm not seeing why it's relevant that India did it. India could have sent its talent overseas, to work on rockets and robotics and used their remittances to fund the poor people in India, similar to what Kerala has managed to do.

The_Metatron wrote:I can think of a simpler exercise.

Do the same as above, only with a wheelbarrow. Solve all the problems required to make a simple wheelbarrow. No outsourcing. Rubber, wood, steel, bearings. How many people would you have to put to work just to make rubber tires?

It doesn't matter if others know how to make wheelbarrows already. The exercise is to figure out how, employ the people, get the stuff, and do it yourself.

Why wouldn't I just use existing knowledge and resources to get one cheaply? Economies of scale have brought the cost of a wheelbarrow down considerably in terms of material resources, time, and effort.

You say it doesn't matter if others know how to make a wheelbarrow, I say those others that don't matter can be instrumental in my own success.

I get this is an exercise, I get that there are broader benefits. I don't see how those are justified relative to less sexy, less nationalist options.

r.c wrote:The investment made in the research for space exploration has direct returns, even if you ignore the spin-offs. The PSLV (Polar satellite launch vechicle) run by ISRO has launched 35 foreign satellites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Sate ... ch_Vehicle

Again, I don't understand why it has to be either or. Should India stop all investments in pure sciences because there are no direct benefits?

I agree that there are returns; I don't see them as being worth it.

In regards to your second bit, I'm not sure what the proper mix is, but I see huge numbers of poor people as being a significant problem that should largely take precedent when we're considering trade-offs. If people have a talent but no local infrastructure to support their abilities, send them to places that have already developed that infrastructure until the opportunity costs aren't so big. As I noted above, that has been key to the success of at least one region in India.

Well the cost of the orbiter wouldn't even register on the sig figs of the posted budget already in place for helping the states deal with poverty and sanitation...

It also ignores that only 1/3 the cost went towards the actual orbiter... the other 2/3s went to upgrading ground infrastructure, which I'm sure some of will have direct and immediate positive impact.

Also, is it better to build a few toilets or give people a job? There are surely a lot more jobs to be made upgrading ground infrastructure and building + launching an orbiter than there are to be had building a few toilets. I wouldn't know but I'm sure India has their own budget balanced according to what they perceive as important matters (of which addressing poverty is near the top of the list). One of the bigger issues it would seem is the way India is looking at poverty rather than not spending to alleviate it. Ie. they don't need more funding they need better allocation of funding.

Acetone wrote:Well the cost of the orbiter wouldn't even register on the sig figs of the posted budget already in place for helping the states deal with poverty and sanitation...

It also ignores that only 1/3 the cost went towards the actual orbiter... the other 2/3s went to upgrading ground infrastructure, which I'm sure some of will have direct and immediate positive impact.

Also, is it better to build a few toilets or give a person a job? I wouldn't know but I'm sure India has their own budget balanced according to what they perceive as important matters (of which addressing poverty is near the top of the list). One of the bigger issues it would seem is the way India is looking at poverty rather than not spending to alleviate it. Ie. they don't need more funding they need better allocation of funding.

we are currently engaged in a discussion about appropriate allocation of funding so

Loren Michael wrote:

Acetone wrote:Well the cost of the orbiter wouldn't even register on the sig figs of the posted budget already in place for helping the states deal with poverty and sanitation...

It also ignores that only 1/3 the cost went towards the actual orbiter... the other 2/3s went to upgrading ground infrastructure, which I'm sure some of will have direct and immediate positive impact.

Also, is it better to build a few toilets or give a person a job? I wouldn't know but I'm sure India has their own budget balanced according to what they perceive as important matters (of which addressing poverty is near the top of the list). One of the bigger issues it would seem is the way India is looking at poverty rather than not spending to alleviate it. Ie. they don't need more funding they need better allocation of funding.

we are currently engaged in a discussion about appropriate allocation of funding so

So why not talk about how to allocate the 2+bn already being spent? Why is the Mars orbiter of specific interest even though it cost relatively so little? I mean it doesn't get any more specific than picking out a single project and talking about it. It's not even as if people have been talking about India's entire space program budget (~1bn I believe) it's specifically the Mars orbiter.

That's without getting into whether or not it'll yield any worthwhile returns, which I believe it will.

Acetone wrote:

Loren Michael wrote:

Acetone wrote:Well the cost of the orbiter wouldn't even register on the sig figs of the posted budget already in place for helping the states deal with poverty and sanitation...

It also ignores that only 1/3 the cost went towards the actual orbiter... the other 2/3s went to upgrading ground infrastructure, which I'm sure some of will have direct and immediate positive impact.

Also, is it better to build a few toilets or give a person a job? I wouldn't know but I'm sure India has their own budget balanced according to what they perceive as important matters (of which addressing poverty is near the top of the list). One of the bigger issues it would seem is the way India is looking at poverty rather than not spending to alleviate it. Ie. they don't need more funding they need better allocation of funding.

we are currently engaged in a discussion about appropriate allocation of funding so

So why not talk about how to allocate the 2+bn already being spent? Why is the Mars orbiter of specific interest even though it cost relatively so little? I mean it doesn't get any more specific than picking out a single project and talking about it. It's not even as if people have been talking about India's entire space program budget (~1bn I believe) it's specifically the Mars orbiter.

That's without getting into whether or not it'll yield any worthwhile returns, which I believe it will.

We're talking about this one specifically because it's in the news; I guarantee that there are other larger problems with how india spends its money, this is just a symptom. It's of specific interest in part because it's an extravagant symbol of what I believe to be a problem of nationalist vanity projects. This one has more usefulness than some others I can think of because of the tech involved, but it still seems like a misallocation.

The_Metatron wrote:No, John. You insist on that weapons connection, once more revealing in ignoring NASA's contributions to this, and many other technologies that indeed make your life better. As for the development of the integrated circuit, you also enjoy ignoring the timing of it. By 1963, NASA's demand for ICs for the Apollo program had pushed the price down by a factor of 40. Just about right on time for the Air Force and Autonetics to start using those much cheaper ICs to build the D-37C Minuteman guidance computer, which was fielded in 1965. Timing, John. Your conclusions are confounded by historical timing.

That's how it started.

Would the Air Force have had the budgetary clout to drive that industry as NASA did for the Apollo project? Could be. The US has spent $486 billion on manned spaceflight programs over the last 57 years. The DoD's budget for next year alone is over $495 billion. That's a sort of apples and oranges comparison, because not all of that DoD budget is for hardware or development, particularly of new technologies.

But likely, we would still have microcircuits if the Apollo program hadn't existed. Just not as quickly, I suppose.

Nevertheless, you make my point for me about what India has done. Instead of innovating by designing weapons systems, they are innovating by peaceful space exploration. The benefits of innovation are perfectly well known. We are back to where we started.

India did this on their own. They didn't buy a Thiokol rocket motor, or an old Delta booster rocket. They didn't use a Radio Shack communications network to track and control this probe from around the world. They made this stuff, John. They figured out how to do it, then did it.

This was a bad plan?

All you have to do is show how the Luddite Fallacy is false.

I gather I have adequately dispensed with your previous response to me:

The_Metatron wrote:So, what's up, John? That little problem of the Minuteman III D-37C guidance computer being built in1965 using ICs, two years after NASA's influence dropped the price from $1000 apiece to $25 apiece fucking with you?

Since I see no mention of Minuteman IIIs. Great! It's slow going but at least we're making progress.

Now for the tedious task of sorting your latest ...

No, John. You insist on that weapons connection, ...

Well, yes, I do insist, it's a big part of the history, although I would never suggest that ICs wouldn't have developed without ICBM development. It would have taken a different course but I imagine it would have happened.

Do you deny the role the military played in early IC development?

... once more revealing in ignoring NASA's contributions to this, ...

I haven't ignored NASA's contribution to early IC development. I have acknowledged it,

From comment #218

And while I agree that the Apollo program's use of early ICS aided the very young industry ( one can also wonder about some drag effects it had on the industry), that's not the essential claim you made, which was: ...

Remember the actual audacious claim you made? Perhaps we'll get to that at some later point. I'll continue ...

As for the development of the integrated circuit, you also enjoy ignoring the timing of it. By 1963, NASA's demand for ICs for the Apollo program had pushed the price down by a factor of 40.

There you go again with a new version of that anecdote that you like to tell. Do you have any actual data to back up that myth of yours?

Let's take a look at the actual timing and some actual data!

From:

http://www.klabs.org/history/history_do ... ic4-po.pdf

The first Purchase Order for ICs made by MIT for the Apollo program was cut on Feb. 16, 1962 at a price of $43.50 each for 100 ICs. Delivery was in a few days. It looks like the parts were on the shelf! An important detail is that the order went to Fairchild Semiconductor- not TI.

It turns out that MIT did place an order to TI for ICs in 1959 for 64 ICs at $1000 apiece but TI didn't fill that order until late 1962.

Since timing seems to be important to you let's look at the timing of all this a bit closer.

From:

http://www.klabs.org/history/history_do ... s/1029.pdf

The Apollo guidance computer (AGC) is a real-time digital-control computer whose conception and development took place in the early part of 1960

From the same document we see that the actual contract award from the gov wasn't until mid 1961.

Which does make one wonder why MIT was trying to buy $1000 ICs in 1959.
From:
http://www.klabs.org/richcontent/MAPLDC ... Hall_S.PDF

The Laboratory and Dr. Charles Stark Draper, its director and chairman of MIT's Aeronautics Department, were leaders in inertial guidance technology. Our reputation had developed during the 1950s. Draper was promoting, somewhat unsuccessfully, inertial guidance for the military's ballistic missiles. Then, in 1956 the Navy initiated the Polaris Project. A project to develop a ballistic missile capable of being launched from a submerged submarine. The missile required a very small inertial guidance system much smaller than anything that was even on the drawing boards. The Navy selected the Instrumentation Laboratory for the project.

Late in 1959, the system was ready and flew the first inertially guided Polaris with a digital guidance computer. By 1960, the Polaris guidance system was in production. Draper's team had designed and transferred the technology to a production facility in accordance with the Navy's development plan and schedule.

Next, the Navy initiated a guidance system improvement program under a more relaxed schedule. Size and weight reduction were important. The Lab was exploring welded cordwood fabrication techniques and integrated circuits as possible approaches. We had a development contract with TI for 64 integrated circuits but delivery was still years in the future. Welded cordwood looked promising and was selected for the second generation Polaris guidance.

So, Ti got a $1000 a chip PO in 1959, using the purse strings of "mass destruction", but couldn't deliver. When it came time to buy chips for Apollo, Fairchild had off the shelf chips that only cost about $40 in very small quantities.

And as we see from:

http://www.klabs.org/history/history_do ... ic4-po.pdf

As with most things you buy, the more you buy the better price break you get. By
June of 62 they were paying $20. each. And you'll notice that it didn't take large
quantities or large expenditures for the price to get to $20. The money Apollo
spent on chips before the price came down to $20. was peanuts compared to
the military seed money.

Of course, it's important to note that this was the Fairchild price. TI got a
new PO Sept 20, 1962 at $40 each for 100 units. And another order in Feb 63 for
4100 units at $24.88 each. But this was canceled in Nov 63 for failure to deliver.

(Hmmmm. NASA cancels a contract to an important Dallas manufacturer in Nov
63 and also in Nov 63 JFK is killed in Dallas .... _ but I digress)

It turns out that the second IC supplier to come on line for NASA was Transitron
Electronic Sales Corb. who got a PO for 100 ICs at $30. each in March 1962. These
units tested satisfactory and were delivered on time.

In April 1963 Fairchild got a PO for 3000 ICs at $15 each.

As you can see, from the PO record, it didn't take a lot of units for the price to come down. And
Fairchild had their production line in order and parts on the shelf. I don't see how one can conclude
from this data that the moon landing was essential to the development to the IC. Although MIT
engineers did a lot of good testing work and I'm sure it helped. The competition certainly may
have helped TI get their act together but that's not the issue at hand.

Part of the problem with all the misinformation about all of this seems to be how that premature
PO for TI's chips at $1000 per chip that they couldn't produce got on charts and into the mythology
of the history of NASA and Computers.

That's my evidence for actual cost and timing of actual ICs for the Apollo program. Do you have
any other evidence to support your anecdote?

Would the Air Force have had the budgetary clout to drive that industry as NASA did for the Apollo project? Could be.

We know for sure that the Air Force gave big $ seed money for IC development. And we know for sure that the only reason NASA was allowed to spend money as wildly as it did was to help win the cold war by beating the Russians to the moon. We know this because we can listen to JFK spelling this out to the tech weenies at NASA.

This is well worth a listen.

http://whitehousetapes.net/clips/1962_1121_apollo/

you're too late, John

the Most Intelligent Poster has shown the masses What Is and What Is Not

I now move on, Galactus-like, to bring another thread to a close

Loren Michael wrote:you're too late, John

the Most Intelligent Poster has shown the masses What Is and What Is Not

I now move on, Galactus-like, to bring another thread to a close

To whom are you referring?