> You might expect the power supply to be a simple buck converter. However, the power supply uses a more complicated design to provide electrical isolation between the spacecraft and the clock. I'm not sure, though, why isolation was necessary.<p>A reason very simple, you don't want a short through the clock to set your space, or aircraft on fire!<p>A big reason why a lot of avionics still works on HF AC power, and not DC is that it makes isolation, and providing arbitrary voltages very easy.
You can also watch the companion YouTube video series, at <a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb5-951yH6TlPobwnQkLYWnDW" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-_93BVApb5-951yH6TlP...</a>
The board construction and component quality is exceptional and pro. Reminds me of HP gear (and later, Apple 2) of that time. Clearly created with pride - these are tech treasures.<p>Edit: Here's a series of Curious Marc videos about the clock.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBIhzEZkWEA&list=PL-_93BVApb5-951yH6TlPobwnQkLYWnDW" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBIhzEZkWEA&list=PL-_93BVApb...</a>
Important thing worth mentioning: here in the USSR in many cases electrical engineers' bonuses were paid according to the count of parts used. So there was a natural motivation to overcomplicate things.
One possibility for the TTL design rather than something more integrated is that such coarse chips are much less susceptible to damage from hard radiation, and this clock must have been a very important part of the spacecraft control systems.
> Why is the clock so complicated? In this blog post, I examine the clock's circuitry and explain why so many chips were needed.<p>Thousands of words follow before getting to the answer. What is the point of such a tease in a technical blog post with no advertising?<p>Do people think this makes good writing? Have authors internalized the clickbait style they read in so much other media? It's too common to be accidental.