[HN Gopher] The guidance system and computer of the Minuteman II...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The guidance system and computer of the Minuteman III nuclear
       missile
        
       Author : magnat
       Score  : 88 points
       Date   : 2024-08-19 19:06 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.righto.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.righto.com)
        
       | kens wrote:
       | Author here if anyone has questions...
        
         | OldSchool wrote:
         | Excellent presentation, thank you!
         | 
         | The machinery is ironically beautiful to look at!
         | 
         | How did this compare to its approximate contemporary in the
         | USSR ?
        
         | metadat wrote:
         | What is the purpose of the window?
         | 
         | (As labeled in https://static.righto.com/images/minuteman-
         | mmiii/guidance-la...)
        
           | QuinnyPig wrote:
           | From the article:
           | 
           | > Also note the window in the side of the missile to allow
           | the light beam from the autocollimator to reflect off the
           | guidance platform for alignment.
        
             | metadat wrote:
             | Thanks, I finished reading the article while in the air and
             | realized my faux pas without any Internet! Cheers.
             | 
             | It's labeled in another image towards the end:
             | 
             | https://static.righto.com/images/minuteman-mmiii/silo.jpg
        
         | ulnarkressty wrote:
         | The article states that the system was cooled using a solution
         | of sodium chromate to inhibit corrosion. However the wiki page
         | of sodium chromate states that it is very corrosive. Is it a
         | typo or something?
         | 
         | It's also mentioned that the computer uses one of the first
         | integrated circuits for miniaturization. Do you know if this
         | can be definitely traced to advances in industrial/consumer
         | products? It's a common trope that military research trickles
         | down - so it's a "good" thing. It's not clear if this actually
         | happens or if progress would have been made eventually without
         | the need for these machines.
        
           | philipkglass wrote:
           | _The article states that the system was cooled using a
           | solution of sodium chromate to inhibit corrosion. However the
           | wiki page of sodium chromate states that it is very
           | corrosive. Is it a typo or something?_
           | 
           | Chromates are effective corrosion inhibitors for aluminum
           | alloys and some other metals. Here's a brief article about
           | how they work with aluminum:
           | 
           | "Inhibition of Aluminum Alloy Corrosion by Chromates"
           | 
           | https://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/wtr/wtr01/IF12-01-P.
           | ..
           | 
           | When the Wikipedia entry's "Safety" section says that sodium
           | chromate is corrosive, in context it means "destructive to
           | human tissue by contact." That is, like sodium hydroxide
           | (lye) and many other chemicals, in concentrated form it can
           | destroy skin and eyes.
        
           | kens wrote:
           | Sodium chromate is highly corrosive to humans (as well as
           | carcinogenic, see the movie Erin Brockovich). However, it
           | inhibits corrosion in metal, acting as a passivating
           | inhibitor, forming some sort of protective oxide.
           | 
           | I've been doing a lot of research on the impact of Minuteman
           | and Apollo on the IC industry (which led to the current
           | post). The Air Force likes to take credit for the IC
           | industry, as does NASA, but the actual influence is
           | debatable. My take is that both projects had a large impact
           | on the IC industry, more from Minuteman. However, even in the
           | absence of both projects, there was a lot of interest and
           | demand for ICs. If I had to take a quantitative guess, I'd
           | say that those projects advanced ICs by maybe a year, but the
           | basic trajectory would have remained the same.
        
         | izacus wrote:
         | How does a 1-bit serial computer actually work? E.g. how does
         | an ADD operation look like? It's a bit hard to picture.
        
           | kens wrote:
           | In a serial computer, you have a 1-bit ALU, say an full adder
           | that generate a sum and carry. Each clock cycle you read two
           | bits and feed them into the adder, and then you write back
           | the sum. You hold the carry in a flip-flop to use in the next
           | clock cycle. It's just like doing a binary addition with
           | pencil and paper, one bit at a time.
           | 
           | Note that you need to start with the lowest bit with a serial
           | computer, which explains why x86 is little-endian. It goes
           | back to the Datapoint 2200, a desktop computer made from TTL
           | chips and running serially. The Intel 8008 processor was a
           | copy of the Datapoint 2200 (as was the Texas Instruments TMX
           | 1795). Although the 8008 was parallel, it copied the little-
           | endian architecture of the Datapoint 2200.
        
         | bloopernova wrote:
         | Do you have any plans to write about World War 2 era mechanical
         | firing computers? I searched your blog but didn't see anything.
         | 
         | Or maybe early RADAR systems of 1942 and later?
         | 
         | (been reading about WW2 Pacific naval/air wars, and I am
         | curious about these new-at-the-time technologies)
        
           | kens wrote:
           | I planned to write about the electromechanical Torpedo Data
           | Computer used in WWII, but I got distracted.
        
       | bun_terminator wrote:
       | I have a morbid curiosity to know how much of all that old tech
       | would actually work in a full scale nuclear war, launching all
       | missiles. Seems so well thought-out, but also incredibly hard to
       | test. Really fascinating article!
        
         | akira2501 wrote:
         | Why would it be hard to test? We have our own anti-missile
         | technology, so it's ostensibly as simple as not putting a
         | payload on the missile, then launching it at your own test
         | range.
        
           | dumah wrote:
           | The physical environment these weapons were designed for is
           | extreme and only possible to simulate piecemeal.
           | 
           | Each stage needs to function in the presence of nearby
           | nuclear detonations, resulting from both adversary and
           | friendly weapons.
           | 
           | These detonations are expected to cause severe shock,
           | thermal, radiation, and electromagnetic transients.
           | 
           | In the case of the most important targets, it is guaranteed
           | that numerous detonations near the target, from ABM systems
           | and friendly impacts, will occur, and these systems have been
           | engineered and are expected to perform reliably under such
           | conditions.
        
             | akira2501 wrote:
             | This weapon is an ICBM. The payloads are delivered to orbit
             | then launched at the target from there. You're already
             | facing severe shock, thermal, radiation and EM transients
             | just to get to orbit. Once there, you're ultimately
             | dropping MIRVs, the design of which is considerably
             | simpler.
             | 
             | The delivery vehicle and the reentry/payload vehicle have
             | entirely different life cycles and deployment concerns.
        
         | kens wrote:
         | They did dozens of tests of the Minuteman missiles and reentry
         | vehicles. The warheads were tested underground until the
         | comprehensive test ban treaty of 1996. So it's pretty likely
         | that the systems would work if needed. One risk is that
         | something may have gone wrong with the warheads over 30 years.
         | (Of course they maintain them, but without testing you can't be
         | sure.) Another risk is that you don't know how the missiles
         | would function in an environment with nuclear blasts and EMP
         | all over the place. They put a whole lot of effort into
         | mitigating these factors, but you can't be sure. Hopefully we
         | never find out.
        
           | leeter wrote:
           | Note: While none of the Annex 2 countries that are
           | signatories have conducted tests since 1996; the treaty never
           | took effect because it was never ratified by all the required
           | countries. Most notably the US, China, and Russia (although
           | all three signed). In 2023 Russia officially withdrew,
           | allegedly based on the US non-ratification. At least one
           | political candidate for the presidency in the US has
           | advocated for resuming testing. It is not inconceivable that
           | testing could resume in the near future.
           | 
           | Opinion: I don't think the US would if Russia or China didn't
           | first. China likely won't for the same reason the US doesn't
           | need to: they have super-computers and the sims line up with
           | the data from prior tests. Russia might however if only to
           | saber rattle, although they likely don't need to either.
           | Russia however is likely not in any hurry to have a test
           | failure right now. So while testing could resume, I wouldn't
           | put money on it.
        
         | Joel_Mckay wrote:
         | There was an area of redundant symmetric electronic design,
         | that auto compensated for component level failures. I remember
         | reading an "aerospace" manual all about it when I was a kid. It
         | was necessitated when the tolerance and reliability of
         | components were terrible by today standards.
         | 
         | Note too, that mil spec silicon is different in that it is
         | resistant to CMOS latch-up, redundant CRC protected self-
         | correcting consensus register ops, and large gate sizes less
         | sensitive to Gamma radiation.
         | 
         | It was an interesting time, and a few people still think living
         | under the Sword of Damocles builds character. =3
        
           | detourdog wrote:
           | Here is a link to a bunch of artifacts from of those
           | computers and their development.
           | 
           | https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0YG4TcsmGWIVSf
        
             | kens wrote:
             | Nice collection of Autonetics photos! Are those your
             | photos?
        
               | detourdog wrote:
               | Yes, I'm the guy the always promises to mail you the
               | chips but always fails at the follow through.
               | 
               | Seeing this article make me Think I really have to get
               | you these chips.
        
               | kens wrote:
               | I'm always ready with my microscope to take some die
               | photos!
        
               | Joel_Mckay wrote:
               | There are several chip lines that used this method over
               | the years for various reasons:
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_backgrinding
               | 
               | Best regards =3
        
       | Ringz wrote:
       | Impressive work and very interesting! Since I was instantly
       | interested in the tiny ,,window" and its purpose I found a little
       | error:
       | 
       | ,,Aligning the missile was a tedious process that used the North
       | Star*t* to determine North.,,
        
         | kens wrote:
         | Thanks! I fixed that.
        
       | firesteelrain wrote:
       | Your article on the guidance system reminds me of this
       | https://youtu.be/bZe5J8SVCYQ?si=LuVwiZ7NEI21czoH
        
         | kens wrote:
         | I refrained from including that link :-)
        
         | minkles wrote:
         | Ha that's great. I was expecting this for some reason
         | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXFh54fc8GM
        
       | benjam47 wrote:
       | I live several miles from a Minuteman silo in Montana, maintained
       | by Malmstrom Air Force Base. The underground cabling between
       | sites is also an interesting read
       | (https://minutemanmissile.com/hics.html). Anytime I want to dig
       | on my property, I have to make sure it won't interfere with their
       | pressurized cables. I have heard a story from someone that did
       | accidentally cut a cable, and Malmstrom AFB was able to locate
       | the break and respond rapidly. I am a volunteer firefighter, and
       | our station has a VHS tape and a paper guide titled "Incident
       | Guide for Missile Field Fire Response" provided to us by the DoD
       | regarding our role in responding to fire incidents near or at a
       | silo. A year or so ago, we did respond to a fire near a silo, but
       | it occurred entirely outside the security fencing. My
       | understanding is that the personnel at the silos also have their
       | own ability to respond to fires.
        
       | minkles wrote:
       | Just a bit of additional trivia. Jim Williams (somewhat famous EE
       | at Linear) had a minuteman computer on his living room wall known
       | as "the tapestry": https://www.eetimes.com/photo-gallery-
       | remembering-jim-willia... (last picture in particle). Not sure
       | what revision.
        
         | kens wrote:
         | Those boards are from the Minuteman I, the cylindrical
         | computer. I wonder what happened to his boards?
        
           | minkles wrote:
           | Thanks for confirming (and thanks for the excellent article
           | btw). I wish I knew for sure. Anything of that nature
           | deserves to be carefully preserved.
        
       | blantonl wrote:
       | These systems are so vastly complicated, old, and rarely if ever
       | launched. These aren't like data center generators which have
       | testing schedules etc, and STILL there are failure points.
       | 
       | I really wonder what the failure rate would be if they were all
       | actually launched today. And I mean failure, from not lifting
       | off, to failure in flight, to misguided warheads etc.
        
         | minkles wrote:
         | They have operational models with statistical failures included
         | so they understand what the interception and failure
         | probabilities likely are for each item at component level. You
         | can design that into a system and test for it.
         | 
         | Obviously you can't factor in unknown problems but that's what
         | drills and test flights are for.
        
       | jonathanyc wrote:
       | > The new guidance platform also added a gyrocompass under the
       | alignment block, a special compass that could precisely align
       | itself to North by precessing against the Earth's rotation. At
       | first, the gyrocompass was used as a backup check against the
       | autocollimator, but eventually the gyrocompass became the primary
       | alignment. For calibration, the alignment block also includes
       | electrolytic bubble levels to position the stable platform in
       | known orientations with respect to local gravity.
       | 
       | Had never heard of gyrocompasses before. I worked on a small
       | robot in the past and remember having to calibrate the magnetic
       | compass, which was not very accurate (similar to smartphone
       | compasses). I never thought about how they'd get super precise
       | headings for ICBMs.
       | 
       | The Encyclopedia Britannica article on gyrocompasses is really
       | good. Here it explains why you can't use a gyrocompass on a
       | vehicle on fast aircraft (and I guess small robots that are
       | jostled around a lot):
       | 
       | > A major contribution by Schuler was the discovery that, when
       | the period of oscillation is 2p[?](Earth radius/gravity), the
       | heading precession of the gyroscope spin-axis due to acceleration
       | is exactly the rate of change of the angle between the apparent
       | and true meridians seen on a moving vehicle. The gyrocompass will
       | then read true north at all times if its indicating reference is
       | offset by the angle between these two meridians. The angle, at
       | ship speeds, is a direct function of the north-south speed and is
       | easily set into the system. The need for accurate speed
       | measurement for this offset is the main reason why a gyrocompass
       | is not practical for use in aircraft.
       | 
       | https://www.britannica.com/technology/gyrocompass
       | 
       | Love this article!
        
       | maxglute wrote:
       | What's the actual color of the yellow paint? Goldish like first
       | pic of lemonish like latter pics. Contrast/aesthetics of the gold
       | is just chefs kiss. There's something about American MIC pallette
       | that rarely miss.
        
       | tempaway4575144 wrote:
       | _The idea behind inertial navigation is to keep track of the
       | missile 's position by constantly measuring its acceleration. By
       | integrating the acceleration, you get the velocity. And by
       | integrating the velocity, you get the position._
       | 
       | This sounds like it couldn't possibly work (surely all the little
       | errors compound?) but apparently it's how Apollo navigated
       | 
       | https://wehackthemoon.com/tech/inertial-measurement-unit-mec...
        
         | Zircom wrote:
         | I mean it's a nuclear missile, millimeter accuracy isn't really
         | necessary. Somewhere in the general vicinity is good enough for
         | it's purpose of going boom.
        
       | spoonfeeder006 wrote:
       | Interesting tech and all, but ultimately efforts like this are a
       | waste. If we humans could instead get over our self-perceived
       | need to engage in warfare for childish reasons then we could
       | dedicate such efforts to more productive things like helping
       | homeless people get housing and skills, or developing better
       | psychological sciences to help drug addicts get free from their
       | disease of addiction, you name it
       | 
       | > O SON OF SPIRIT! The best beloved of all things in My sight is
       | Justice; turn not away therefrom if thou desirest Me, and neglect
       | it not that I may confide in thee. By its aid thou shalt see with
       | thine own eyes and not through the eyes of others, and shalt know
       | of thine own knowledge and not through the knowledge of thy
       | neighbor. Ponder this in thy heart; how it behooveth thee to be.
       | Verily justice is My gift to thee and the sign of My loving-
       | kindness. Set it then before thine eyes. > > ~ Baha'i Teaching
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2024-08-19 23:00 UTC)