Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:58AM   Printer-friendly
from the it'll-run-on-a-pocket-calculator dept.

Quartz reports that a former NASA intern has made a Github repository for the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer code.

The AGC code has been available to the public for quite a while–it was first uploaded by tech researcher Ron Burkey in 2003, after he'd transcribed it from scanned images of the original hardcopies MIT had put online. That is, he manually typed out each line, one by one.

"It was scanned by a airplane pilot named Gary Neff in Colorado," Burkey said in an email. "MIT got hold of the scans and put them online in the form of page images, which unfortunately had been mutilated in the process to the point of being unreadable in places." Burkey reconstructed the unreadable parts, he said, using his engineering skills to fill in the blanks.

"Quite a bit later, I managed to get some replacement scans from Gary Neff for the unreadable parts and fortunately found out that the parts I filled in were 100% correct!" he said.

The effort made the code available to any researcher or hobbyist who wanted to explore it. Burkey himself even used the software to create a simulation of the AGC: [link to YouTube video embedded in original story]

As enormous and successful as Burkey's project has been, however, the code itself remained somewhat obscure to many of today's software developers. That was until last Thursday (July 7), when former NASA intern Chris Garry uploaded the software in its entirety to GitHub, the code-sharing site where millions of programmers hang out these days.

[Continues...]

There are some funny comments in the code, which the Quartz story mentions. This one appears to have been added in 2009, and explains the naming of the file BURN_BABY_BURN--MASTER_IGNITION_ROUTINE.agc:

## At the get-together of the AGC developers celebrating the 40th anniversary
## of the first moonwalk, Don Eyles (one of the authors of this routine along
## with Peter Adler) has related to us a little interesting history behind the
## naming of the routine.
##
## It traces back to 1965 and the Los Angeles riots, and was inspired
## by disc jockey extraordinaire and radio station owner Magnificent Montague.
## Magnificent Montague used the phrase "Burn, baby! BURN!" when spinning the
## hottest new records. Magnificent Montague was the charismatic voice of
## soul music in Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles from the mid-1950s to
## the mid-1960s.

Other comments, such as these two from the file LUNAR_LANDING_GUIDANCE_EQUATIONS.agc, are clearly a bit older:


                TC BANKCALL# TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE
                CADR STOPRATE# TEMPORARY, I HOPE HOPE HOPE

Related: World's First Integrated Circuit Microcomputer Found


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:06PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @02:06PM (#398112) Homepage

    Rooster tails are not billows.

    And I can't read your mind; give me a link to the video you're talking about.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @03:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @03:40PM (#398155)

    Rooster tails are not billows.

    Never claimed they are. However, they contain billows (the "feather" or "puff" of the rooster tail).

    And I can't read your mind; give me a link to the video you're talking about.

    Aren't you the lazy one. Here [youtube.com]. Pick your own, there are quite a few around. I recommend you watch them muted at least once. Here [youtube.com] is a muted one, from Apollo 17 presumably (not that it matters).

    And here is some breakdancing [youtube.com] I have been trying to match for years. MAN this guy can MOVE! I wish I had a balloon filled with Helium to attach it to my shoulderblades and walk around with!

    As for the Soviets, consider this: if, just IF, space is not what they teach you and me at school, how would they then call it without also exposing themselves? After all, they Sputnik'ed the US of A in shame.

    Perhaps you are good in coding. Me I am not that good. If you happen to be, then go get this "released" code from github. See if it checks out. And bear in mind that if it does, this does not prove that NASA walked on the Moon. Or that the Moon is walkable. But if it does not, now that would be interesting.

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @06:35PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @06:35PM (#398231) Homepage

      Aren't you the lazy one.

      No, you were being lazy. You claimed there was a video. I wasn't going to waste my time finding one only to be told that it didn't show the effect or was inelligible for some other reason. So I wanted you to provide a video so there would be no arguments about the one that got used.

      I see no billowing. I see rooster tails which stay far too coherent for far too long to be happening in an atmosphere. The particles are following parabolas, just as one should expect in a vacuum.

      Just look at the way the dust comes off the tops of the tyres in coherent sheets. Again not something that would happen in an atmosphere.

      if, just IF, space is not what they teach you and me at school, how would they then call it without also exposing themselves? After all, they Sputnik'ed the US of A in shame.

      If space is not what they teach at school, why didn't the US call the Soviets out as soon as they'd "launched" Sputnik? And what, pray tell, was the point of perpetuating all the supposed falsehoods up to and after then?

      See if it checks out. And bear in mind that if it does, this does not prove that NASA walked on the Moon.

      Then what's the point of "seeing if it checks out"?

      Thousands of better nerds than I are going to be poring over this code. If there's anything suspect about it, we would find out soon enough.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:24PM (#398250)

        No, you were being lazy.

        Perhaps, but you are still acting lazy. I covered this further up on the thread [soylentnews.org] (that you are too lazy to follow =P)

        And what, pray tell, was the point of perpetuating all the supposed falsehoods up to and after then?

        The obvious common denominator that I can see in all this, is to present the Earth as an insignificant randomly generated spinning ball, similar to billions of trillions of others; and that "you shouldn't worry about the nature of our environment, because we worried about it already and here are some pictures on how it is, now have some pie and goodnight, nothing further to see here". Yet EVERY experiment that you can do will show you that the Earth is motionless, and geometrically consistent with the geometry of an infinite plane. The only altitude where the horizon will not follow you and be at eye level is at NASA altitude: was the Earth a globe, the horizon would recede as you gain altitude. The ONLY claims that disagree with the motionless Earth and the lack of convexity come from post-WW2 governments, impossible to be reproduced unless you own your own satellites, missiles, and access to Antarctica and the North Pole, and this is why there has been such a long debate about the shape of the Earth. What, suddenly Einstein is proclaimed a genius by the Fox news of the day, NASA shows you some pictures during the '50s allegedly "from satellites", and the debate for the shape of the Earth is over?

        And as a personal remark, stop behaving as if I have all the answers. I entertain your 3 or 4 questions as I have done so in the past, and I always prompt you to go and do your own observations and research, and not to take my word for it. And you return with like 10 more questions, AND an attitude.

        Is there something preventing you from doing your own observations and experiments?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:55PM (#398264)

          EVERY experiment that you can do will show you that the Earth is... geometrically consistent with the geometry of an infinite plane

          Eratosthenes!

          I'll deal with motionless once you explain him away.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:41PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @11:41PM (#398374)

            I have covered Eratosthenes at a previous post [soylentnews.org].

            I'll deal with motionless once you explain him away.

            Thank you for your vote of confidence. But the only thing you need to 'deal with' is your angry self. I envy you not.

        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:28PM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:28PM (#398276) Homepage

          Yet EVERY experiment that you can do will show you that the Earth is motionless

          Such as? And what about the ones which don't, like Foucault pendulum?

          and geometrically consistent with the geometry of an infinite plane.

          So where does the sun - which does not change angular velocity or angular width in the sky - go at night, and why do people on the other side of the world see it when we don't?

          For that matter, why can't I see the French alps from my window?

          The ONLY claims that disagree with the motionless Earth and the lack of convexity come from post-WW2 governments

          What? Eratosthenes measurement the circumference of the Earth in ancient times. He'd have been hard-pushed to do so if the Earth was flat. And scientific claims don't all get filtered through government. This isn't 1984.

          NASA shows you some pictures during the '50s allegedly "from satellites", and the debate for the shape of the Earth is over?

          It was over long before then. Only contrarians like yourself who seem to some deep need to be at odds with the status quo are trying to keep it alive.

          And as a personal remark, stop behaving as if I have all the answers.

          As an equally personal remark, stop believing things for the sake of the feeling of specialness it gives you to know you're "right." Stop making ridiculous claims without decent evidence (unless you're happy to accept that people would be right, in such circumstances, to ignore you).

          Is there something preventing you from doing your own observations and experiments?

          Yes, it's called the burden of proof, and it rests entirely with you.

          My observations, anyway, are as follows:

          1. The Sun disappears below the horizon at night. It doesn't change angular velocity or angular size in the sky.
          2. I can't see the French alps from my window.
          3. I can't see England either.
          4. My sister, who I have no evidence to suspect is part of a massive government conspiracy, consistently claims that her local time is some six hours behind mine.
          5. I've literally seen the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.

          All of these things are inconsistent with a flat Earth.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:39PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:39PM (#398303)

            Yes, it's called the burden of proof, and it rests entirely with you.

            You misunderstand: me trying to answer the questions you pose to me does not mean that I "have to" prove anything to you. Nobody "has to" do anything for anybody, unless you believe in slavery. And even according to the "burden of proof" and "status quo" doctrine that you unfortunately seem to have submitted your free will to, I still do not "have to" anything: the claim that the Earth is a spinning ball hanging in space and rotating around a perpetual nuclear fusion at mind-boggling speeds held by the magic force of gravity, that only NASA and Einstein have proofs for, all those coming from a Big Bang grand explosion where nothing, for no reason, arbitrarily decided to explode and create life out of pure coincidence, is equally extraordinary to the notion of a flat and stationary Earth. The difference is that it is a story that you (and me) are taught and spoon-fed enough throughout youth, and feel more familiar and comfortable with.

            1. The Sun disappears below the horizon at night. It doesn't change angular velocity or angular size in the sky.

            It does change angular size during Sunset. It shrinks. A known and prominent effect on high altitudes, and also deserts, where atmospheric attenuation is relatively low.

            2. I can't see the French alps from my window.

            Attenuation.

            3. I can't see England either.

            Ditto. This is no different than (2).

            4. My sister, who I have no evidence to suspect is part of a massive government conspiracy, consistently claims that her local time is some six hours behind mine.

            The globe model is not the only one that can explain timezones. A spotlight-like Sun over a flat planar Earth can also explain this observation.

            5. I've literally seen the curvature of the Earth with my own eyes.

            You have mentioned this before. Something about you climbing a high mountain. And I have literally seen the flat horizon following me at eye level, at every altitude. And as I pointed to you before, this is subjective, and this is why I also proposed an experiment to you, where you can use a simple x200 refractory telescope and track objects behind the alleged curvature, as explained in detail in previous posts. An experiment you still refuse to perform.

            • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:31PM

              by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:31PM (#398326) Homepage

              It does change angular size during Sunset. It shrinks.

              Only in one direction, and in a manner perfectly consistent with refraction.

              Attenuation.

              No, not attenuation. Attenuation doesn't mean you suddenly can't see beyond a certain distance. Considering that from orbit the ground can be clearly observed through the atmosphere, the (not all that much, comparatively) extra distance required for me to see England should not render it invisible.

              If attenuation were that much of a factor, I wouldn't be able to see moon when it's rising, either (assuming you agree that it does actually rise and set, which you may well not, even though it would be contrary to the evidence of your own eyes).

              At a height of 10 degrees I'd be looking through almost as much atmosphere as the distance to England, and yet I can still see the moon and even stars (which are much dimmer than the moon) at that height.

              The globe model is not the only one that can explain timezones. A spotlight-like Sun over a flat planar Earth can also explain this observation.

              But that "explanation" is entirely inconsistent with the constant-angular-velocity constant-angular-width Sun which we see passing through the sky every day. Not to mention the blindingly obvious fact that the Sun rises and sets.

              You have mentioned this before. Something about you climbing a high mountain. And I have literally seen the flat horizon following me at eye level, at every altitude.

              Not a mountain - a translantic flight at 30,000+ feet. That's higher than any mountain.

              where you can use a simple x200 refractory telescope and track objects behind the alleged curvature, as explained in detail in previous posts. An experiment you still refuse to perform.

              Because it's a damn near impossible experiment for me to perform. Some of us don't have easy access to conveniently sized bodies of water. In any case, I would not be sufficiently motiviated by the evidence you have thus far presented to feel any such effort would be warranted (and I'm not exactly hopeful that you'd view any results with objectivity, anyway).

              Why don't you do an even simpler experiment - I mean, it doesn't get any simpler, really - and watch the sun set? Now explain that in the context of a flat Earth with time zones.

              --
              systemd is Roko's Basilisk