Talk:Semi-Automatic Ground Environment

message: In the upgrades section it mentions BUIC and BUIC II.  But from what I can tell BUIC (I) was a manual backup system not a solid state system an mentioned . See History of Strategic and Ballistic Missile Defense: Volume II: 1956-1972 p 154.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal9000w (talk • contribs) 10:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back Up Interceptor Control System 

message: There are two Deployment sections! - these should be combined. Ben Finn (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Deployment

message: I worked as an intercept director (IND) and Weapons Director (WD) at the Sioux City Airbase (shared with the civilian airport) SAGE squadron and as IND, WD, Senior Weapons Director (SWD), and Senior Director (SD) at the Great Falls, Montana (Malmstrom AFB) SAGE Squadron.  Sioux City in 1967-68 and Great Falls in 1969-70.  The F-102, F-89, F-101 aircraft we controlled did NOT have the data link controls cited in the article.  The F-106s did but it hardly ever worked, usually couldn't even be initiated on the ground before takeoff and when it was it crashed during the airborne mission.
The article refers to the large projection light boards visible to everyone in the direction center.  We DID NOT have such boards.  The only time I saw such a light board was in a remote AC&W site in Alaska where there was a single surveilance console which provided the input to airman behind the large lighted board who marked the board with erasable markers.
69.145.131.45 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interceptors 

message: What sort of resolution and refresh rate did the displays have?  Or are some of them analog?  They look...round.  How many computations per second could the CPUs (did they even have CPUs?) make?  I'm wondering how the system compares to modern computers.  It seems a stretch for the early digital technology of the time to digitally process and display the analog radar returns, but then again SAGE was groundbreaking and incredibly expensive. Burroughs AN/FST-2 Coordinate Data Transmitting Set says that system digitized radar signals with quarter-mile resolution. -- Beland (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computing specs 

message: It's my opinion that this page should be at least confidential and kept to USA mil personell only.  Why?
It is TMI "too much information" military information.  It names too many locations and system name keywords current and past.   And the "encyclopedic reader" really doesn't need every particle of military information.  And being from the U.S.A. I really don't feel safer where so much military info is accessed by (future) combatants.
I worked in SAGE from 1976 to 1980 as a Weapons Control Tech and as a Weapons Director Tech and any information about these systems is out dated and is not a security issue. These computers used second generation vacuum tube computers with a normal frame time of 14 seconds. In combat situations that time could easily increase to 30 seconds. With fighters moving at speeds in excess of Mach 2 that made this system difficult in being able to know exactly where your interceptor and target were located. (Rickydee2)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickydee2 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, I think you've been wearing the tin foil hat too long. SAGE is an antiquated system - it was obsolete almost the day it went operational back around 1960 and hasn't been in service in what 30 years. You might as well say that an article on the Sherman tank or the P-47 gives away vital military information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.9 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion - REMOVE THE PAGE 

message: Looking at the history of this page, I see that some of the links to disambiguation pages that I just fixed were previously fixed:
*my dab fix, July 7, 2013
*JustAGal's dab fix, March 5, 2013
I don't see a reason to link to the disambiguation pages, but correct me if I'm wrong. -PC-XT+ 04:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  redab 

message: What a horrible mess this article is. Do editors ever read their work back and ask themself "Does any of this make sense to an average reader?". I can only assume not. Virtually every sentence is a mass of references, links (even ones that go nowhere), abreviations, parentheses and quotations. And why does every piece of information that comes from a reference have to be quoted? I'm a technical person with a science and computing background but reading this article has simply given me a headache. 3/10.
87.114.7.76 (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a mess! 

message: "IBM's production contract developed 56 SAGE computers for $½ billion (~$18 million per computer pair in each FSQ-7)[30]—cf. the $2 billion WWII Manhattan Project."
Aside from the nonstandard "$½ billion" ($500 million), this is just IBM's contract. [The same source](http://ed-thelen.org/Sage-Talk.html) says the total cost was between "somewhere between four and twelve billion dollars, in dollars of around 1960," which just to put into perspective is around $40-120 billion in 2015 depending on what kind of deflator you use. Which is to say, a fairly high price tag. _That_ is the number that should be compared to the Manhattan Project (which was $2 billion overall, not a single contractor, and that works out to ~$30 billion 2015 depending on the deflator used). So SAGE was more expensive, probably much more so, which is not at all surprising (or damning, or whatever), given that it lasted for a lot longer than the Manhattan Project.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.246.200.14 (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  SAGE cost 

message: The direction center in the lead photo is the one at McGuire AFB, readily identifiable from Google Maps by the non-perpendicular intersection next to it. The Stewart AFB building does not have this feature. The source identifying it as such is mistaken. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 07:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead photo