glc@akgua.UUCP (G.L. Cleveland [Lindsay]) (07/20/85)
The earlier launch pads at Cape Canaveral all had "blockhouses" which were made larger and with thicker walls as the launch vehicles got bigger. (One is not supposed to call them "Missiles" and "Rockets"...NASA only has "launch vehicles") These earlier pads were constructed in the days before digital data links were around, so all the connections between the control panels and the pad were discrete copper wires, one per signal. For gauge readings and other analog controls (potentiometers), there was always a physical limit as to how long the wire could be before the signal became unreliable. With the Apollo Project and the *huge* Saturn V launch vehicle, (much larger than the Space Shuttle), the need to move back a few miles changed the design of the pads. Now you have the crawlerway to move the entire vehicle and its launch pedestal from the assembly building out to the pad. That pedestal internally contains two floors of equipment, including a computer system which is data-linked to another computer system back at the control panel complex (what you see everyone sitting at on the TV shots of "Our dedicated and skilled technicians") To (finally) answer the question; it is called the Launch Control Center (LCC). It has windows facing the pad(s) which have steel blast shutters over them. These are closed whenever there is fuel aboard the vehicle and during launch. Those windows make it a lot less claustrophobic for the day-to-day working folks. Those older blockhouses gave you a feeling like being in "Der Fuhrers Bunker!" You had a periscope to see out with, and that was all! Another reason for the LCC is economy. Before, you would have one blockhouse per pad. With the Apollo program, it was planned to have two pads, with possible expansion to more. With data-link techniques, one LCC could be used for all the pads. You merely switch the LCC's computer hook-up to the desired pad's computer. OK trivia buffs: what kind of computers (manufacturer, operating system, etc.) do they have in the LCC and launch pedestal? Cheers, Lindsay Lindsay Cleveland (akgua!glc) (404) 447-3909 Cornet 583-3909 AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/25/85)
> Another reason for the LCC is economy. Before, you would have one > blockhouse per pad. With the Apollo program, it was planned to > have two pads, with possible expansion to more... Actually, it was originally planned to have three and a possible fourth. If you look at a map or aerial photo of KSC, you will note that there is a seemingly-purposeless bend in the crawlerway to pad 39B. That's where the crawlerway to 39C was supposed to branch off. Another bit of pre-budget-cut trivia for those interested: the VAB is designed to permit adding two more high bays on the end. That's why the paved area on the north (?) side is so big, because a goodly chunk of it would disappear under the two extra bays. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
eugene@ames.UUCP (Eugene Miya) (07/30/85)
We did not receive the referenced articles as our news feed was down. > OK trivia buffs: what kind of computers (manufacturer, operating > system, etc.) do they have in the LCC and launch pedestal? > > Cheers, > Lindsay > > Lindsay Cleveland (akgua!glc) (404) 447-3909 Cornet 583-3909 > AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga I have not been to KSC, but I believe the majority of main machines are a combination of IBM 370-class machines running a home grown system and several hundred MODCOMP-IIs, IVs, and CLASSICs running different versions of the MAX operating system. There are a few PDP-11s and VAX/VMS systems, some VARIAN 620f and Univacs V73s and 1100s. By the way, I was at the ACM booth at SIGGRAPH, and there is an excellent article in a recent issue of the Annuals of Computing on NASA space computers. It mentions the use of magnetic tape drives at a time when everybody else is using disk drives. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene emiya@ames-vmsb
al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) (07/31/85)
> We did not receive the referenced articles as our news feed was down. > > > OK trivia buffs: what kind of computers (manufacturer, operating > > system, etc.) do they have in the LCC and launch pedestal? > > > > Cheers, > > Lindsay > > > > Lindsay Cleveland (akgua!glc) (404) 447-3909 Cornet 583-3909 > > AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga > Related issue: JSC just bought a large number of MASSCOMP's running a real time version of UNIX to replace mission control computers. I don't know how the conversion is going or even if it will ever be accomplished.
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (08/03/85)
> there is an excellent article in a recent issue of the Annuals of > Computing on NASA space computers. It mentions the use of magnetic tape > drives at a time when everybody else is using disk drives. > --eugene miya If you are interested in the subject of space computers, take a look at CACM, Vol 27, #9 (Sept 1984). To quote from "The Space Shuttle Primary Computer System" by Spector and Gifford in that issue (copyright (C) 1984 by The Association for Computing Machinery, Inc.): AS. Is the memory core? Macina. Yes, it's ferrite core. By today's standards it seems outdated, but it does have certain advantages; for instance, it's inherently nonvolatile when power is removed. I believe core is also much less sensitive to cosmic radiation etc. than semiconductor memory is. Surprisingly enough, the on-board computers are rather non-impressive in terms of computing power; the standard cpu on the shuttle is about a 1/2 MIPS machine. They are designed not to be fast, but to be non-crashable. You cretins arguing SysV vs. 4.2 for better stability will notice that neither system is used on the shuttle. :-) -- Roy Smith <allegra!phri!roy> System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute 455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (08/10/85)
> It mentions the use of magnetic tape drives at a time when > everybody else is using disk drives. I saw a cost analysis on this awhile back. Its conclusion was that for most of NASA's computers-in-space functions, the magnetic media only have to be sequential-access devices; and that the cost-per-bit of magnetic tape is enormously smaller than for disk. Thus, the use of the magnetic tapes. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Vg frrzf yvxr hc gb zr."