Topics

Voyager 1 #History #Space


Timothy Stoddard
 

Even though some systems are getting shut down on Voyager 1... I would imagine it's 1802 (perhaps multiple?) is still crunching away!
--
Tim Stoddard
"Life with technology: It's a roller coaster ride!"


Andrew Hudson
 

Wow, that would be worthy of an article, There are probably support people at NASA who read and write 1802 code to support the mission.
 
Regards,
Andrew
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Timothy Stoddard <tim@...>
To: cosmacelf <cosmacelf@groups.io>
Sent: Fri, Jul 12, 2019 11:35 am
Subject: [cosmacelf] Voyager 1 #Space #History

Even though some systems are getting shut down on Voyager 1... I would imagine it's 1802 (perhaps multiple?) is still crunching away!
--
Tim Stoddard
"Life with technology: It's a roller coaster ride!"


Dennis Boone
 

Wow, that would be worthy of an article, There are probably support
> people at NASA who read and write 1802 code to support the mission.

Actually, I think it was Galileo that used all the 1802s. Others
include MAGSAT, and several AMSAT vehicles also used 1802s.

http://www.retrotechnology.com/memship/1802_spacecraft.html

De


Hank Riley
 

It's pretty certain that there is no 1802 family device in the Voyager, as has been mentioned on this list several times before.  In fact according to wikipedia the Voyager used no IC based microprocessor of any kind!



It has been erroneously reported on the Internet that the Voyager space probes were controlled by a version of the RCA 1802 (RCA CDP1802 "COSMAC" microprocessor), but such claims are not supported by the primary design documents. The CDP1802 microprocessor was used later in the Galileo space probe, which was designed and built years later. The digital control electronics of the Voyagers were not based on a microprocessor integrated circuit chip.

__________________________________________________________________________________


On Friday, July 12, 2019, 12:17:50 PM EDT, Dennis Boone <drb@...> wrote:

> Wow, that would be worthy of an article, There are probably support
> people at NASA who read and write 1802 code to support the mission.

Actually, I think it was Galileo that used all the 1802s.  Others
include MAGSAT, and several AMSAT vehicles also used 1802s.

http://www.retrotechnology.com/memship/1802_spacecraft.html


Joe Blackburn
 

So we're quoting Wikipedia as a valid source of history/technology? Just sayin'...


Joe Blackburn
 

1802 used in OSCAR and AMSAT Programs, noted by Dr. Karl Mainzer, January, 1979, BYTE.


awasson2001
 

I don’t recall all of the details because when this was a hot topic was in 2010. Steve Gemeny probably has a much better recollection but I have a suspicion that the editor who straightened out Wikipedia’s pages about the space probes and the RCA 1802’s inclusion or exclusion was a member of our group. Again, it was a long time ago. Here are relevant edits in that time period by the guy who edited it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Brouhaha&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2010-01-01&end=2010-12-31

Andrew



On Jul 12, 2019, at 10:23 PM, Joe Blackburn via Groups.Io <josephjohnblackburn@...> wrote:

So we're quoting Wikipedia as a valid source of history/technology? Just sayin'...


Steve Gemeny
 

Yep, Andrew has it right.
Long story but I’ll shorten it a bit.
I published a paper in 2003 for a symposium held at JPL. In the process an editor changed the spacecraft name to incorrectly refer to Voyager (which change I did not notice prior to release). 

It was eventually pointed out and corrected in a subsequent “revised” issuance of that paper that JPL has refused to update in an archive of papers from that and other conferences.

So the voyager error still perpetuates.  

It has been fully researched and posted by several people (including myself) but most notably by Herb Johnson (of this group) on his web site about 1802 use in space.

It’s first use in a spacecraft that reached orbit and operated was as Command and data handling (C&DH) for MAGSAT.  The Galileo spacecraft began its design earlier but delays the schedule caused it, with eleven 1802s as instrument controllers to be launched after MAGSAT.

Ref:
   Thanks Herb!
And to all those who struggle to keep Wikipedia correct in such matters.
When it gets improperly changed- it gets caught and corrected- such is the value of open source publicatio

Steve Gemeny


Sent by my fat thumbs drifting aimlessly  across tiny soft I Keys...

On Jul 13, 2019, at 3:19 AM, awasson2001 <awasson@...> wrote:

I don’t recall all of the details because when this was a hot topic was in 2010. Steve Gemeny probably has a much better recollection but I have a suspicion that the editor who straightened out Wikipedia’s pages about the space probes and the RCA 1802’s inclusion or exclusion was a member of our group. Again, it was a long time ago. Here are relevant edits in that time period by the guy who edited it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Brouhaha&namespace=&tagfilter=&start=2010-01-01&end=2010-12-31

Andrew



On Jul 12, 2019, at 10:23 PM, Joe Blackburn via Groups.Io <josephjohnblackburn@...> wrote:

So we're quoting Wikipedia as a valid source of history/technology? Just sayin'...


Timothy Stoddard
 

Thanks everyone for setting the record straight!
--
Tim Stoddard
"Life with technology: It's a roller coaster ride!"


megaslug1
 

No, some people on this group did some research. Plus space qualified hardware takes years to prove out, something that wouldn’t have been possible with the brand new 1802. And it’s hard to argue they didn’t get things right with Voyager, seeing as how they are still working long past their expected life span. 

     —Randy


Steve Gemeny
 

Randy,

Your post seems confusing to me.

By first saying “No” it feels like you are disagreeing with the position of someone,  but what follows seems to support the stated position that Voyager had no 1802s aboard. It also seems to me you could be being somewhat dismissive of the research that was conducted.

Care to clearing...?

Steve


Sent by my fat thumbs drifting aimlessly  across tiny soft I Keys...

On Jul 13, 2019, at 8:58 AM, megaslug1 <rer@...> wrote:

No, some people on this group did some research. Plus space qualified hardware takes years to prove out, something that wouldn’t have been possible with the brand new 1802. And it’s hard to argue they didn’t get things right with Voyager, seeing as how they are still working long past their expected life span. 

     —Randy


Gregg Levine
 

Hello!
I happen to know that micros such as the CDP1802 didn't start making a
difference in our satellites until about the time of the Pioneer Venus
mission. There they used a version of the Intel 4004 (or 4040) one.
Voyager was designed when the companies who make such devices were
still looking at bipolar logic and even bit-slice systems.

And fabricating chips who will survive space outside of the Belts
happens to be difficult but not impossible. The two named Voyager and
oddly enough both named Pioneer who left our space before them were
built that way. And are largely still going strong.

The Galileo was indeed built around a batch of CDP1802 ones. That's been proven.

The others working in the same region may have also been built that
way, but the facts are not in yet.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@...
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:26 AM Steve Gemeny <steve@...> wrote:

Randy,

Your post seems confusing to me.

By first saying “No” it feels like you are disagreeing with the position of someone, but what follows seems to support the stated position that Voyager had no 1802s aboard. It also seems to me you could be being somewhat dismissive of the research that was conducted.

Care to clearing...?

Steve


Sent by my fat thumbs drifting aimlessly across tiny soft I Keys...

On Jul 13, 2019, at 8:58 AM, megaslug1 <rer@...> wrote:

No, some people on this group did some research. Plus space qualified hardware takes years to prove out, something that wouldn’t have been possible with the brand new 1802. And it’s hard to argue they didn’t get things right with Voyager, seeing as how they are still working long past their expected life span.

—Randy


Stephen Cass
 

If you’re looking for the definitive text on the development and design of the Voyager computers, this chapter from a NASA History office publication is the thing:


In a nutshell, there are multiple custom-built computers, made from discrete ICs and other components rather than using microprocessors 


On Jul 13, 2019, at 11:58 AM, Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8@...> wrote:

Hello!
I happen to know that micros such as the CDP1802 didn't start making a
difference in our satellites until about the time of the Pioneer Venus
mission. There they used a version of the Intel 4004 (or 4040) one.
Voyager was designed when the companies who make such devices were
still looking at bipolar logic and even bit-slice systems.

And fabricating chips who will survive space outside of the Belts
happens to be difficult but not impossible. The two named Voyager and
oddly enough both named Pioneer who left our space before them were
built that way. And are largely still going strong.

The Galileo was indeed built around a batch of CDP1802 ones. That's been proven.

The others working in the same region may have also been built that
way, but the facts are not in yet.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@...
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:26 AM Steve Gemeny <steve@...> wrote:

Randy,

Your post seems confusing to me.

By first saying “No” it feels like you are disagreeing with the position of someone,  but what follows seems to support the stated position that Voyager had no 1802s aboard. It also seems to me you could be being somewhat dismissive of the research that was conducted.

Care to clearing...?

Steve


Sent by my fat thumbs drifting aimlessly  across tiny soft I Keys...

On Jul 13, 2019, at 8:58 AM, megaslug1 <rer@...> wrote:

No, some people on this group did some research. Plus space qualified hardware takes years to prove out, something that wouldn’t have been possible with the brand new 1802. And it’s hard to argue they didn’t get things right with Voyager, seeing as how they are still working long past their expected life span.

    —Randy






megaslug1
 

Replying on a mobile device, it’s hard to include the post to quote. Silly me for assuming the rely to list link would place the reply under the relevant message, but I was replying to the post that said “so now we are relying on Wikipedia as a scientific source” or something to that effect, so my “no” was in response to that sentence, thus the rest supporting the idea that Voyager does not use 1802s.
 Seems odd that a modern threaded message system wouldn’t place a reply to a specific message in the proper place in the thread hierarchy, but now I know.

        —Randy


Steve Gemeny
 

Randy,

Thanks.  That clears my confusion.

Apologies if I seem to have observed an “exit off the freeway” that wasn't meant to have been... our language sometimes leads to misinterpretation - some studies suggest as little as 7% of meaning is conveyed by the words alone... therefore I ask.

Again, thanks for the clarification.

Be well,

Steve

Sent by my fat thumbs drifting aimlessly  across tiny soft I Keys...

On Jul 14, 2019, at 1:20 AM, megaslug1 <rer@...> wrote:

Replying on a mobile device, it’s hard to include the post to quote. Silly me for assuming the rely to list link would place the reply under the relevant message, but I was replying to the post that said “so now we are relying on Wikipedia as a scientific source” or something to that effect, so my “no” was in response to that sentence, thus the rest supporting the idea that Voyager does not use 1802s.
 Seems odd that a modern threaded message system wouldn’t place a reply to a specific message in the proper place in the thread hierarchy, but now I know.

        —Randy


thinkpast
 

Thanks, Steve Gemeny for referencing my Web page. I think it made a difference at the time. Those interested in this subject - read the fine Web page, follow the links accordingly. It explains itself. I think it holds up under review.

Thanks to Andrew, for the reference to Wikipedia editing. I think that editor is familiar to me. I don't know if I'll be able to report about that person's work. But in a way, it doesn't matter much. I think my Web page and the COSMAC discussion, likely influenced anyone at the time; I doubt I can establish a chain of events.

Thanks to Greg Levine for the idea of a 4004 in Pioneer Venus. I think it's unlikely but I'll run down the details.

Web-based publication, posts in discussion groups, books on bookshelves. Each must be read with degrees of skepticism. I did my homework and my curation of the subject; check out my references; then decide if I got "the record straight" on microprocessors in space. "The value" proves itself.

I will take credit for publishing that "the 1802 was the first microprocessor in orbit". I don't think anyone made that claim before I. I think the claim holds up. Let me know otherwise.

Regards, Herb Johnson


Gregg Levine
 

Hello!
It was either the I4004 or the I4040. But not the I8008, because of
the usual periods that the development cycle takes for building and
then launching the respective birds. As for 11 CDP1802 ones on the
Galileo yes indeed, and Herb you are right there.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@...
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM thinkpast <hjohnson@...> wrote:

Thanks, Steve Gemeny for referencing my Web page. I think it made a difference at the time. Those interested in this subject - read the fine Web page, follow the links accordingly. It explains itself. I think it holds up under review.

Thanks to Andrew, for the reference to Wikipedia editing. I think that editor is familiar to me. I don't know if I'll be able to report about that person's work. But in a way, it doesn't matter much. I think my Web page and the COSMAC discussion, likely influenced anyone at the time; I doubt I can establish a chain of events.

Thanks to Greg Levine for the idea of a 4004 in Pioneer Venus. I think it's unlikely but I'll run down the details.

Web-based publication, posts in discussion groups, books on bookshelves. Each must be read with degrees of skepticism. I did my homework and my curation of the subject; check out my references; then decide if I got "the record straight" on microprocessors in space. "The value" proves itself.

I will take credit for publishing that "the 1802 was the first microprocessor in orbit". I don't think anyone made that claim before I. I think the claim holds up. Let me know otherwise.

Regards, Herb Johnson


Mark Abene
 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that the 1802 processors used on the Galileo aren't run of the mill CDP1802's, but special silicon-on-sapphire (SOS) versions.


On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 2:10 PM Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8@...> wrote:
Hello!
It was either the I4004 or the I4040. But not the I8008, because of
the usual periods that the development cycle takes for building and
then launching the respective birds. As for 11 CDP1802 ones on the
Galileo yes indeed, and Herb you are right there.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@...
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM thinkpast <hjohnson@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Steve Gemeny for referencing my Web page. I think it made a difference at the time. Those interested in this subject - read the fine Web page, follow the links accordingly. It explains itself. I think it holds up under review.
>
> Thanks to Andrew, for the reference to Wikipedia editing. I think that editor is familiar to me. I don't know if I'll be able to report about that person's work. But in a way, it doesn't matter much. I think my Web page and the COSMAC discussion, likely influenced anyone at the time; I doubt I can establish a chain of events.
>
> Thanks to Greg Levine for the idea of a 4004 in Pioneer Venus. I think it's unlikely but I'll run down the details.
>
> Web-based publication, posts in discussion groups, books on bookshelves. Each must be read with degrees of skepticism. I did my homework and my curation of the subject; check out my references; then decide if I got "the record straight" on microprocessors in space. "The value" proves itself.
>
> I will take credit for publishing that "the 1802 was the first microprocessor in orbit". I don't think anyone made that claim before I. I think the claim holds up. Let me know otherwise.
>
> Regards, Herb Johnson
>




Gregg Levine
 

Hello!
Correct. Those were specially fabricated. There's a whole write up on
the subject elsewhere as it happens. Suffice to say it was the first
real example for making anything using that process. As I recall
regular logic was already available at an extreme amount versus the
usual price schedule for regular ones. However... The CDP1802 ones
were very special and as it happens the process was involving and as
it happens one of the national labs was involved as they had already
been working on making Rad Hard parts effectively.

Herb can probably tell this one better, and certainly Lee can as well.
But that's my take on it.

In fact there's a whole big discussion on that in Don Lancaster's
excellent book on the subject on CMOS Logic. In fact he's rather taken
with the fact that the only CMOS processor available then was indeed
the CDP1802. Now we have a number of them, I am especially fond of the
R65C02, but that's a story for a different group.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@...
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 6:02 PM Mark Abene <phiber@...> wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall that the 1802 processors used on the Galileo aren't run of the mill CDP1802's, but special silicon-on-sapphire (SOS) versions.


On Tue, Jul 16, 2019, 2:10 PM Gregg Levine <gregg.drwho8@...> wrote:

Hello!
It was either the I4004 or the I4040. But not the I8008, because of
the usual periods that the development cycle takes for building and
then launching the respective birds. As for 11 CDP1802 ones on the
Galileo yes indeed, and Herb you are right there.
-----
Gregg C Levine gregg.drwho8@...
"This signature fought the Time Wars, time and again."

On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 4:38 PM thinkpast <hjohnson@...> wrote:

Thanks, Steve Gemeny for referencing my Web page. I think it made a difference at the time. Those interested in this subject - read the fine Web page, follow the links accordingly. It explains itself. I think it holds up under review.

Thanks to Andrew, for the reference to Wikipedia editing. I think that editor is familiar to me. I don't know if I'll be able to report about that person's work. But in a way, it doesn't matter much. I think my Web page and the COSMAC discussion, likely influenced anyone at the time; I doubt I can establish a chain of events.

Thanks to Greg Levine for the idea of a 4004 in Pioneer Venus. I think it's unlikely but I'll run down the details.

Web-based publication, posts in discussion groups, books on bookshelves. Each must be read with degrees of skepticism. I did my homework and my curation of the subject; check out my references; then decide if I got "the record straight" on microprocessors in space. "The value" proves itself.

I will take credit for publishing that "the 1802 was the first microprocessor in orbit". I don't think anyone made that claim before I. I think the claim holds up. Let me know otherwise.

Regards, Herb Johnson


David Schultz
 

On 7/16/19 6:10 PM, Gregg Levine wrote:
Hello!
Correct. Those were specially fabricated. There's a whole write up on
the subject elsewhere as it happens. Suffice to say it was the first
real example for making anything using that process. As I recall
regular logic was already available at an extreme amount versus the
usual price schedule for regular ones. However... The CDP1802 ones
were very special and as it happens the process was involving and as
it happens one of the national labs was involved as they had already
been working on making Rad Hard parts effectively.
An article describing a radiation hardened 1802 was co-authored by
employees of Sandia Labs. That article was for a bulk CMOS process and
not SOS.

https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6054040-radiation-hardened-bulk-si-gate-cmos-microprocessor-family


My high school electronics class got a tour through the Sandia Labs fab
ca. 1978. I like to think that they had some 1802s in work at the time...


--
https://web.archive.org/web/20190214181851/http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz/
(Web pages available only at the Wayback Machine because Earthlink
terminated that service.)