
Argon-16 Computer - peterburkimsher
http://www.computer-museum.ru/english/argon16.htm
======
sbzodnsbd
What I wish the Russian speaking HN readers would provide some history or
documentation on is:

\- Setun, a ternary (as opposed to binary) computer

\- DSSP, a Forth like language that users seem to gush about in the same
manner Lispers gush about LISP.

Info/history on both those systems are increadibly difficult to obtain in
English!

~~~
yznovyak
Is there anything particular you would like to know? I've heard a little about
Setun from my parents, but nothing too exciting, I can ask around if you're
interested.

For a little context: my mother studied cybernetics and father studied
electrical engineering in USSR in 70s. They still have their college textbooks
lying around, so I can try to dig something up for you from that era. But keep
in mind, even in 70s it was obvious that USSR was decades behind USA. Heck, my
first algorithm textbook was my parents' 2nd edition of Knuth's TAOCP
(interestingly, my parents combined have 1 copy of 1st volume, 0 copies of 2nd
volume, and 2 copies of 3rd volume).

~~~
sbzodnsbd
DSSP, what’s so special about it? I sense LISPers and Forthers sense of
“enlightenment” (which I have not obtained). But what is so special about DSSP
that it’s considered a generalization of Forth?

Setun:

just about everything! I read it failed lately because bureaucrats stymied
engineer’s creativity to do things the “Western” way (it seems this slowed the
Soviet’s bomb since their scientists figures a better way to do something)

How were logic gates defined ? (Ie what type of ternary logic was used)

What were the voltage levels to represent the states?

What were the performance specs?

What did it do well? What did it do poorly?

Can it be re-implemented in CMOS?

------
codedokode
English translation seems to have a mistake:

> Speed: addition - 5 ms, multiplication - 45 ms.

The times are in microseconds, not milliseconds.

~~~
huhtenberg
Indeed. From [http://www.computer-
museum.ru/histussr/13-3.htm](http://www.computer-museum.ru/histussr/13-3.htm)
:

> _Время выполнения операций (мкс): сложения - 5, умножения 45._

мкс = микросекунды

------
mysterydip
I'm surprised its operating temperature range is so small (0-40C) given its
main application.

~~~
varjag
It was likely installed in a conditioned enclosure with a bunch of other
instruments. You can stretch mid-1960s semiconductor tech only so much.

~~~
jackhack
I suspect this is due to the small thermal window of (then state of the art)
germanium transistors which was still in widespread use. It wasnt until the
mid 1960s that the silicon transitor overtook germanium in terms of speed. And
the USSR was many years behind the West, in terms of materials & design.

Interesting related fact. The thermal operating range of germanium transistors
was a concern even in the music world. The "Fuzz Face" pedal which helped give
Jimi Hendrix his distinctive distorted guitar tone was built with two
germanium transistors in a very simple circuit (< 5 components if I remember
correctly). The distortion produced by this pedal was well known to change on
stage, under hot lights or in cold basements, etc. To make matters worse, it
was also sensitive to the supply voltage, so a fresh 9v acid battery would
sound different than a dying battery. (ironically, the dying battery sounded
better to most ears. The circuit only drew around 30 mV so a near-dead battery
could still last a long time.) As a result, it was not unusual for working
musicians to travel with several fuzzfaces and a pocket full of batteries,
trying a few at soundcheck to see which sounded the best.

~~~
varjag
Correct, component base lagged behind in USSR and quality assurance was
tricky. Even in 1980s there were 5 rejection classes of bipolar transistors
compared to just two in the West.

I counted 3-4 years R&D cycle prior to 1974 and then subtracted a few years to
account lag in the technology. However for high profile projects like these it
wasn't uncommon to simply source the quality Western components.

One of my coworkers in the 1990s was an older guy who was developing systems
like that in early 1980s. A lot of stories, not sure how apocryphal. Once they
had problems with one of the copied Motorola chips produced in Estonia. The
deadline was looming, so they tried to source original chips. However that
chipset was discontinued for years at that point with no stock anywhere,
neither original Motorola nor compatibles. So they had to restart production
on one of the fabs in Asia, using a KGB shell company to handle transaction.

------
pontusrehula
Beginning of production: 1974. Termination of production: still in production.

Solid engineering, I guess.

~~~
Etheryte
> Total output of machines: 380.

> During 25 years of operation no failures of the system were noted when
> working in control systems. By the production volume it is unrivalled among
> space computers.

Not only still in production, but still in production with no failures
reported. This is beyond amazing. Triple redundancy and hardware majorization
will surely help you greatly, but no failures across those numbers is just
mind-boggling.

~~~
ahoka
This is the product of the Soviet Union, so take it with a grain of salt.

~~~
fit2rule
"Don't let the stats sway you - think of the propaganda!"

~~~
v_lisivka
"no failures noted" != "no failures".

~~~
fit2rule
.. unless of course the standard application for the device is in safety-
critical/life-protection systems, in which case "no failures noted" better be
honest.

~~~
theamk
Why? They try to keep all information secret, especially the one that make
USSR looks bad. For example, they denied existence of Level 6 nuclear accident
for 30 years [0].

If the nuclear accident which had 10,000 people evacuated was suppressed and
denied for 30 years, why would you trust them to publish _any_ negative
information about military computer?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak#Kyshtym_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak#Kyshtym_disaster)

~~~
fit2rule
I mean, these systems are flying on the ISS and protecting American lives.

If its good enough for NASA, its good enough for me. Or are you suggesting
that NASA also fell for the scam?

------
mitchtbaum
If you like innovative spaceship programming tools out of Russia, check out
DRAKON,
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAKON](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DRAKON)

(shoutout Artiom)

------
fyfy18
The power consumption (280W) for the weight (70kg) seems rather low. What sort
of power consumption did similar era computers, that took up a room, have?

~~~
dogma1138
It didn’t took a room it’s a flight computer iirc it’s still in use on the
Soyuz.

And it sounds about right for a 70’s era hardened military computer.

The US used 5 AP-101s for the shuttle they where about 22kg each and the power
figures I could find range from 370w to 480w.

Bare in mind that there is a good chance that a large part of the power
consumption could have went into thermal stabilization rather than computation
given that the system power consumption of say an Apple II was around 5w.

~~~
ahoka
It was replaced by TsVM-101 in Soyuz TMA-M and later models so they can use
that 70kg for payload.

Edit: Found a nice source for a lot of information including comparision
between the Argon and the TsVM: [http://www.bis-space.com/belgium/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/...](http://www.bis-space.com/belgium/wp-
content/uploads/2015/05/russiafuture.pdf)

The new module is 8.3kg and consumes 46 watts of power.

~~~
pinewurst
Thanks for that! It's interesting that Argon-16 (and its replacement) are
located in the service module which is jettisoned after the deorbit burn.

~~~
dogma1138
No need for it in the crew compartment, overall it’s likely worth bringing and
additional 70kg of equipment back than a computer that can likely won’t
survive the landing.

------
jacobush
Was it the most deployed mobile computer?

~~~
georgeecollins
I would say Nokia 1110. The iPhone 6 comes close.

~~~
jacobush
Was the iPhone 6 around in the 1970s?

