Talk:AN/FSQ-7 Combat Direction Central

Comments

According to the 1961 BRL report, Whirlwind II was a totally different computer from the AN/FSQ-7. -- RTC 23:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The external link supplied does not say that the AN/FSQ-7 was Whirlwind II, it says that Whirlwind II (at Cambridge at the time) was used as a proof of concept test for the proposed SAGE system!!! -- RTC 23:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The statement "The fifty-two AN/FSQ-7s remain the largest computers ever built, and will likely hold that record in the future." Seems strange, for example the Earth Simulator are of a similar scale and as i understand uses 6 MW power. Even if it should be the biggest it seams speculative to assume that it will remain that way. Are ther any sourses? 82.209.130.109 (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, by floor space, the SAGE systems remain the largest. The next runner up appears to be the IBM Roadrunner, at 560m**2. Roadrunner might be more massive, however - while I've found no weight reference, it uses 296 racks, and full racks on mainframe-type systems tend to run 500-1500kg - and Roadrunner would mass more at the higher end of that range. Rwessel (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

F101 and Transponder referance.

The transponder normally relates to the SIFF system which is strictly an identification system to identify friend from friend on radar scopes. What really should be identified in this part of the article is the F-101 and all variants connected to the SAGE computer via Digital Data Link of which there were 2 variants. These were TDDL ( Time Delayed (?) digital Link) or FDDL ( frequency delayed digital link) Both were very effective and made us (weapons controllers and aircrew a much stronger team , especially in a very heavy communications jamming environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.102.57 (talk) 05:52, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Confusing sentence phrasing in opening paragraph

"The largest computer system ever built, each of the 24 centrals[7]:9 weighed 250 tons and had two computers…"

Could somebody please rewrite that sentence so the number of systems and weight distribution is clearer?  Due to the ":9" mid-sentence, I can't tell if it means that only nine of the "centrals" (should that be "centers" or "locations"?) weighed 250 tons & had 2 computers, or if all 24 'centrals' did (and what the :9 means in that case), or something else. —Xyzzy☥the☥Avatar 11:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

"Centrals" is a somewhat uncommon term for installation or (main)frame, depending on context. I hear it most from non-native English speakers from Europe. The same group uses it to refer to things like (electrical) power generation stations. Anyway, I agree that's not great language, and I've cleaned it up a bit. The footnote reference is unfortunate, and I agree it's a bit confusing. The format "[7]9" references footnote 7 (the usual interpretation of [7]), but the following "9" is being used as a page number, which is really not that common on WP. Rwessel (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

first depiction of a human being?

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/01/the-never-before-told-story-of-the-worlds-first-computer-art-its-a-sexy-dame/267439/

May be worth mentioning.Geni (talk) 10:32, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

IBM ???

IBM was the construction contractor; I can't find an IBM reference where IBM claims to have trademarked the AN/FSQ-7. The article should be retitled, removing the "IBM".50.136.247.190 (talk) 16:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly correct. None of the other articles about military equipment with names of that format include the builder in the title (AN/FSQ-32, AN/FPS-26 Radar, AN/SPS-48, etc.). IBM AN/FSQ-8 Combat Control Central should be renamed as well. Unless someone objects in the next few days, I'll do the moves. Rwessel (talk) 16:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Article moved. Rwessel (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - in the article there is also an image IBM AN/FSQ-7 Combat Direction Central that needs the same change & I lack the skills to do it. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is this image? I don't see it under that name on either en or commons. Also where is it used? Rwessel (talk) 23:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

New locations added by 206.47.117.231

Editor 206.47.117.231 added "Installed at Grand Forks and Minot North Dakota". I removed this as it was simply added in the wrong location. It should go in the infobox to fill out the existing complete list there, but there are no supporting references. I copied the addition here in case references for these site can be found. Rwessel (talk) 05:13, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

$10 billion price ??

$10 billion price is definitely error in cited article, it should be $10m. as said in SAGE article, entire system including 52 computers and lot of peripherals, buildings, phone lines etc costs billions of dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.78.69.167 (talk) 15:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, according to that article, it costED $10 billion. It also references Wikipedia in some parts. The site is a tertiary source at best, and not even close to being a reliable one. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 03:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the total *project* cost was $8-12 billion (for example [1]) in then year dollars. That included something like 50 centers, and this system was only part of each center. Rwessel (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the statement as clearly wrong. If we can find a source (I might have one in my library, have to look later), we can add something proper back. Rwessel (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment mentions that IBM got $500M to build 56 SAGE computers, a pair of which went into each FSQ-7 (so $9M per computer or $18M per FSQ-7). It has a source, too, although I'm waffling about its reliability. Rwessel (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on AN/FSQ-7 Combat Direction Central. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322124853/http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/IBM-SAGE-computer.htm to http://www.computermuseum.li/Testpage/IBM-SAGE-computer.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528235402/http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Q7/ to http://ripsaw.cac.psu.edu/~mloewen/Q7/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081103052003/http://www.mitre.org/about/photo_archives/sage_photo.html to http://www.mitre.org/about/photo_archives/sage_photo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)