Editing Milestone-Proposal talk:SAGE (Semi Automatic Ground Environment)


From GHN

Jump to: navigation, search
Start a new discussion

Warning: The database has been locked for maintenance, so you will not be able to save your edits right now. You may wish to cut-n-paste the text into a text file and save it for later.

The administrator who locked it offered this explanation: test wiki


Please note that all contributions to GHN may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. You are also promising that you wrote this yourself, the material is in the public domain, or that the material contributed respects the copyrights of the original source. In making contributions to the IEEE GHN, you also accept the copyright terms of the IEEE GHN, which are the Creative Commons Legal Code - Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (for more details see Creative Commons Legal Code).

FileIndexer: Create/update index
Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
SAGE milestone evaluation 15 August 2011 022:35, 15 August 2011

SAGE milestone evaluation 15 August 2011

The mammoth Project SAGE is without doubt highly worthy of an IEEE Milestone. The proposal already highlights the project's many achievements in digital hardware, programming, systems integration, and spawning the Boston region's computer industry. Specific technical accomplishments in signal processing, radar, networking, multiuser computing, and others are well described. The proposed location at Lincoln Laboratory seems entirely appropriate, with original buildings and a secure site. MIT's Lincoln Laboratory agrees to have the site designated as an IEEE milestone, and the Boston section is a willing sponsor.

Drafting text for this milestone may be a bit complicated, since SAGE involved multiple partners in addition to Lincoln Labs. The Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratory and IBM are both briefly mentioned; their contributions probably need to be recognized (one sentence could take care of this). There is no mention of Jay Forrester, and I think this omission, if intended, might best be justified.

This proposal draws on the sizable secondary historical literature on Project SAGE (esp. Redmond & Smith), which strengthens its treatment.

One tiny correction: should the title for chapter 17 of the MIT EECS history be "Whirlpool [sic] to SAGE" or rather "Whirlwind to SAGE"?, 15 August 2011