Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 12th Jul 2016 23:55 UTC, submitted by arsipaani
In the News

From Engadget:

The source code for Apollo 11's guidance computer has been available for a while (Google hosted it several years ago, for instance), but would you know how to find it or search through it? As of this week, it's almost ridiculously easy. Former NASA intern Chris Garry has posted the entire Apollo Guidance Computer source code on GitHub, giving you a good peek at the software that took NASA to the Moon. As Reddit users point out, it's clear that the developers had a mighty sense of humor -- line 666 of the lunar landing turns up a "numero mysterioso," and there's even a reference to radio DJ Magnificent Montague's classic "burn, baby, burn."

Yes, it's been available for a while, but any moment to reflect on one of man's greatest technological achievements is a moment worth savouring.

Order by: Score:
vocivus
Member since:
2010-03-13

Perhaps not the greatest technological achievement... but arguably one of the greatest overall.

Just the other day I watched the descent video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2553605597&fe...)

It shows that as great as the technology was, the immense fortitude of those involved was astounding. They achieved what they did with far less technology than we have today, but we're unwilling to be as bold as they were to move the frontier onward.

Reply Score: 1

ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Perhaps not the greatest technological achievement... but arguably one of the greatest overall.

Sure there have been other great achievements but there's something about landing a human being on another world and returning them back to Earth? For thousands of years what lay beyond the Earths atmosphere was `the heavens`... Being able to say been there and brought back samples is truly amazing to put it mildly.

Reply Score: 2

vocivus Member since:
2010-03-13

I totally agree. What I'm expressing is the ill-formed and poorly expressed thought that this wasn't just a technical achievement but one of sheer will. They did what they did with comparatively little technology.

The fact that we're not on Mars today and that human space flight beyond LEO seems to always be 20 years out is always blamed on the lack of technology. It's really the (aggregate) lack of will to do it that holds us back.

I do agree that the moon landings were the high water mark for our species. But it wasn't just our tools that made it happen.

Reply Score: 2

v meh
by icicle on Wed 13th Jul 2016 04:12 UTC
RE: meh
by abraxas on Wed 13th Jul 2016 04:46 UTC in reply to "meh"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

There were no moon landings.


I hope you're joking/trolling. There are some people who think we never went to the moon. They are called idiots.

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: meh
by yoshi314@gmail.com on Wed 13th Jul 2016 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE: meh"
yoshi314@gmail.com Member since:
2009-12-14

think about how fake moon video footage works to a layman. that's mostly due to ignorance of average person.


physics in low gravity+vacuum are so different from what we are used to on earth - moon flag was flapping around in a strange way in vacuum on the footage, odd misalignment of shadows on pictures and moon buggy video looked like it was recorded on earth and slowed down 2x, the very sharp black/white contrast on pictures, etc.

all of was explained by experts, and after that i stopped doubting.

even after explaining it all - one thing remains. it was still an insane technological leap at the time, and that makes many conspiracy-minded people suspicious, especially if consider how many (often fatal) technical failures the road to the moon landing was paved with.

Edited 2016-07-13 12:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: meh
by kwan_e on Wed 13th Jul 2016 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: meh"
kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

it was still an insane technological leap at the time, and that makes many conspiracy-minded people suspicious, especially if consider how many (often fatal) technical failures the road to the moon landing was paved with.


You'd think they'd factor in the fact that there were many fatalities along the way that they learned from and that was why they were successful.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: meh
by Drumhellar on Wed 13th Jul 2016 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: meh"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Not many, but three.

At least, on the US side. At that time, we weren't learning from Russian fatalities, though.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: meh
by icicle on Wed 13th Jul 2016 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: meh"
RE[3]: meh
by darknexus on Wed 13th Jul 2016 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: meh"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is coming from a self-proclaimed creationist, which automatically lowers your credibility in my book. Now you're telling me that something that definitely did happen didn't? Uh huh. Go somewhere else. Next you'll try to say that some biblical figures lived in Missouri or something.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: meh
by icicle on Wed 13th Jul 2016 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: meh"
icicle Member since:
2013-12-07

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but this is coming from a self-proclaimed creationist, which automatically lowers your credibility in my book. Now you're telling me that something that definitely did happen didn't? Uh huh. Go somewhere else. Next you'll try to say that some biblical figures lived in Missouri or something.


I appreciate and value true Science but if you're implying that Scientism is anything but another religion or cult then perhaps you should do some research. Science can no more explain our true origins or our destinies than creationism. Chances are you also believe in evolution.

I am not trying to gain credibility BTW.

Look into the moon landing conspiracy for yourself and see what you think. Once you've done that, then you could fairly argue for or against it.

While you're at it why don't you look into the flat earth, the firmament and the van allen radiation belts. Expand your mind. Test everything.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: meh
by tylerdurden on Wed 13th Jul 2016 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: meh"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I am not trying to gain credibility BTW.


You don't say. LOL.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: meh
by nicholasj on Wed 13th Jul 2016 20:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: meh"
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

Someone up-voted this merde?

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: meh
by tylerdurden on Wed 13th Jul 2016 21:20 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: meh"
tylerdurden Member since:
2009-03-17

I did. I think anyone, who is so fundamentally dumb as to accept in the XXI century the idea that the earth is flat, needs all the help they can get...

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: meh
by icicle on Thu 14th Jul 2016 00:07 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: meh"
icicle Member since:
2013-12-07

I did. I think anyone, who is so fundamentally dumb as to accept in the XXI century the idea that the earth is flat, needs all the help they can get...


Lol!

I dare you guys to look into the flat earth stuff. Try to debunk it.

Reply Score: 1

v Comment by tonyyeb
by tonyyeb on Wed 13th Jul 2016 08:01 UTC
RE: Comment by tonyyeb
by henderson101 on Wed 13th Jul 2016 10:59 UTC in reply to "Comment by tonyyeb"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

Well, here's the thing. The whole "man means only male" doesn't hold etymological water. Words change meaning over time, but "man" as a placeholder for "human" has a long long history:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/man#Etymology


Etymology
The noun is from Middle English man, from Old English mann ‎(“human being, person, man”), from Proto-Germanic *mann- ‎(“human being, man”), probably from Proto-Indo-European *man- ‎(“man”) (compare also *men- ‎(“mind”)). Cognate with West Frisian man, Dutch man, German Mann ‎(“man”), Norwegian mann ‎(“man”), Old Swedish maþer ‎(“man”), Swedish man, Russian муж ‎(muž, “male person”), Avestan 𐬨𐬀𐬥𐬱 ‎(manuš), Sanskrit मनु ‎(manu, “human being”), Urdu مانس and Hindi मानस ‎(mānas).

The verb is from Middle English mannen, from Old English mannian, ġemannian ‎(“to man, supply with men, populate, garrison”), from mann ‎(“human being, man”). Cognate with Dutch mannen ‎(“to man”), German bemannen ‎(“to man”), Swedish bemanna ‎(“to man”), Icelandic manna ‎(“to supply with men, man”).

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by tonyyeb
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 13th Jul 2016 11:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tonyyeb"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Very simple: it's the difference between:

"Men's greatest achievement"

and

"Man's greatest achievement".

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Comment by tonyyeb
by tonyyeb on Wed 13th Jul 2016 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by tonyyeb"
tonyyeb Member since:
2007-12-02

Fair enough, just a thought. Can't believe I was marked down 2 points for posing the question...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by tonyyeb
by techweenie1 on Wed 13th Jul 2016 14:14 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tonyyeb"
techweenie1 Member since:
2008-10-15

My guess is, you were marked down because it has the marks of Polical Correctness triggering/virtue signaling, which is becoming increasing repulsive, thankfully.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by tonyyeb
by henderson101 on Wed 13th Jul 2016 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by tonyyeb"
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

The problem is, "human" is no better than man... it's practically the Latin equivalent of "man". I didn't vote you down, but I commented because it is just overtly PC propaganda to insist "man" refers only ever to the male of the species.


Etymology
From Middle French humain, from Latin hūmānus ‎(“of or belonging to a man, human, humane”), from homo ‎(“man, human”). Spelling human has been predominant since the early 18th century

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by tonyyeb
by tonyyeb on Wed 13th Jul 2016 14:58 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tonyyeb"
tonyyeb Member since:
2007-12-02

Thanks for the info, I feel more educated on the subject now ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by tonyyeb
by dionicio on Thu 14th Jul 2016 14:39 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by tonyyeb"
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

"...it's practically the Latin equivalent of..."

Used to think as you, until translation assignments at school started. Not like 'translating' Hex to Binary.

On translating human languages you are 'avatar'-izing alien concepts. Translating is a performing art.

Advanced translators doesn't stand by their dictionaries.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by tonyyeb
by nicholasj on Wed 13th Jul 2016 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by tonyyeb"
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

But doesn't that, by your definition, make 'man' synonymous with 'mankind'?

Really takes the teeth out of the statenent if Armstrong only effectively said: One small step for us lot is actually a giant leap for us lot.

I much prefer the theory which has the missing 'a' being a radio glitch.

Reply Score: 1

Put the human in the loop
by wigry on Wed 13th Jul 2016 09:15 UTC
wigry
Member since:
2008-10-09

Just couple of months ago I finished a book "Digital apollo" that went through the entire Apollo development process from the perspective of human-machine interface and the main problem was - how to put a man in the middle so that astronauts were not just riding the rocket. The issue was that from mathematical and programming point, it would've been best if no human would intervened the flow. At least that was the initial theory. Of course we know now that human decision was indeed critical in estimating a reasonable landing spot but it was quite funny to read that there were two parties with wildly different perspectives - the test pilots, who wanted to do EVERYTHING by themselves and the rocketmen, who wanted to trust EVERYTHING to computers. So the task of AGC was to meet somewhere in the middle.

And of course the process of programming was immense - you had to literally FREEZE the code 3-4 months before launch, as the nice ladies started to wind the wire through the iron loops to actually create the physical copy of the software. MIT was really baffled with this and the fact that it is not possible to make any last minute changes. At that time, the software was something you could literally hold in your hands and it weighed quite a lot.

Edited 2016-07-13 09:19 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Seen this code before.
by cjcox on Wed 13th Jul 2016 15:03 UTC
cjcox
Member since:
2006-12-21

Pretty sure exact same code was used for a key Russian communications satellite.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Seen this code before.
by nicholasj on Wed 13th Jul 2016 20:35 UTC in reply to "Seen this code before."
nicholasj Member since:
2008-12-10

Only Clint and Donald can save us.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Seen this code before.
by dionicio on Thu 14th Jul 2016 14:22 UTC in reply to "Seen this code before."
dionicio Member since:
2006-07-12

Don't know how willing where reds on 'imitating' blues. From what at the time came to be known, They actually tried to 'differ' -as a kind of doctrine, down to the light bulbs sockets.

Reply Score: 2

jgfenix
Member since:
2006-05-25

It would be great a rewrite in a high-level language like Python (even if it were non-functional code).

Reply Score: 2