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: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:49PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 06 2016, @04:49PM (#398192) Journal

    Not necessarily. The USSR was the first to claim sending machines, animals and humans in orbit. Note that when the USA was Sputnik'ed, the 'solid evidence' was that some 'beep beep' was coming from the heavens above: but there numerous ways to fake the origin of a signal, and there is many a signal that can be bounced off the 'ionosphere', short-wave radio being one example.

    Let's review the evidence that Apollo and more generally, the space program is for real. First, we have copious evidence such as video footage, lunar samples, independent verification of Apollo communications, gear capable of landing on the Moon, eyewitness testimony of the astronauts involved, mirrors on the Moon, imaging of the sites from lunar orbit, and of course, the several hundred thousand people who worked on the project.

    As to your claims in this thread? I think you messed up your observations. I don't buy that rooster feathers are some artifact of atmosphere. The ISS isn't actually "brighter than the brightest Venus" in Earth's shadow. For if it were, I would have seen it.

    Sure, it must be comforting to pretend that they know some big secret, but sorry, Apollo is too big to fake. Anyway, it'll all sort out when we return to the Moon and witness once again the debris left by the various Apollo sorties. But then I suppose you'll move on to some other comforting conspiracy.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @05:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @05:43PM (#398210)

    First, we have copious evidence such as video footage

    NASA monopoly. For Apollo, a feed was given by a camera shooting a projector image from NASA central. So their own feed was filtered twice, by them.

    lunar samples

    Where? Gimme!

    independent verification of Apollo communications

    By whom?

    gear capable of landing on the Moon

    Not really. Their tests kept failing, right up to the launch. No test EVER was successful, their own admission. Look it up.

    mirrors on the Moon

    Where are they? Have you personally shot a laser there and got an echo, or are you quoting me wikipedia and The Big Bang Theory show?

    eyewitness testimony of the astronauts involved

    Military men under oath, are military men under oath.

    imaging of the sites from lunar orbit

    you refer to the wide-angle lens one where the crater at lower left is kept into frame all the way? Are there more?

    the several hundred thousand people who worked on the project

    This can easily be circumvented with a "need-to-know" approach, and compartmentalization, not to mention the miles away you need to be from the launching site. You think all those "hundreds of thousands" saw the astronauts personally and shook their hands and had eyes 24/7 on them? Or all of them kept tracking the space machines? Or you think that every single last one of them was aware of the status of the project as a whole?

    As to your claims in this thread? I think you messed up your observations.

    No, I have not. But you are welcome to perform your own, and figure out the geometry for yourself.

    I don't buy that rooster feathers are some artifact of atmosphere.

    Then what are they? What is the factor resisting the fine dust's momentum and forcing it to a billow, deviating it from its ballistic trajectory that it must have in the alleged vacuum of the Lunar surface?

    The ISS isn't actually "brighter than the brightest Venus" in Earth's shadow.

    Correct: it should be INVISIBLE when in the Earth's shadow, and clearly (to me) it is not, because I have seen it. When I saw it it was more than 80 degrees high (almost near the local zenith) and its apparent magnitude was larger than Venus's apparent magnitude, and this is what I meant. Sorry for the confusion.

    For if it were, I would have seen it.

    If you follow my recommendation of stalking it, you will see it. It is pointless for you to argue that "you would see it" while you have not been looking for it. First look for it, and IF you still cannot see it, THEN argue about not being able to see it.

    Sure, it must be comforting to pretend that they know some big secret

    'Comforting', how? For whom? How can be 'comforting' for anybody to keep a secret?

    Anyway, it'll all sort out when we return to the Moon

    I wouldn't hold my breath for that. I believe you shouldn't either.

    What makes you believe that the Moon is a place that you can actually 'go' and 'walk on'? Is it the "1+1=2 and the Earth is a Globe" motto back when you were little? Is it various 'sciency' stuff you made and were exposed to as a kid? Were you told that being an astronaut is a hero thing to be? TV shows and movies? What?

    Speaking of the moon, have you taken a good look at it, especially how the shadows of its features near the terminator are not geometrically consistent with that of a sphere illuminated at low angles and by infinite distance? (now is a good time for that)

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @07:49PM (#398262)

      figure out the geometry for yourself

      Eratosthenes would still like to have a word with you. You flat earthers can start by debunking his results.

    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:41PM

      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @08:41PM (#398279) Homepage

      Speaking of the moon, have you taken a good look at it, especially how the shadows of its features near the terminator are not geometrically consistent with that of a sphere illuminated at low angles and by infinite distance? (now is a good time for that)

      You need to demonstrate this. You can't just say it and expect someone to go away and do any work to prove you wrong.

      In what way are they inconsistent? What measurements have you made to prove this?

      If you follow my recommendation of stalking it, you will see it. It is pointless for you to argue that "you would see it" while you have not been looking for it. First look for it, and IF you still cannot see it, THEN argue about not being able to see it.

      Or you could give a time, date, and location of one of your "impossible" viewings.

      I can't work out what you mean about being able to see it 22 degrees "past your own terminator".

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:02PM (#398287)

        In what way are they inconsistent?

        Shadows near the terminator (day-night "line" for the surface of the moon) should be longer, and they are not. Sun shining on a sphere from infinity cannot uniformly light it up, there needs to be some specular effect, and there isn't any. It looks self-luminescent to me.

        I can't work out what you mean about being able to see it 22 degrees "past your own terminator".

        By "terminator" I refer to the "line" dividing day and night, on the globe model of the Earth. So, when the Sun sets for you, you are sitting on your own terminator. "22 degrees past the terminator" according to the globe Earth model, is when the Earth has rotated (taking you with it) towards the East, by 22 degrees. Now you are well within the shadow of the Earth, as is everything with an altitude lower than about 400 km, which is also the ISS altitude. Therefore, the ISS is now inside the shadow of the Earth. The ISS is not self-luminescent, and you are supposed to see it only if it reflects Sunlight. But it is impossible to reflect Sunlight when you are more than 22 degrees into the night, because ISS will be in the Earth's shadow.

        Do you see now?

        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:59PM

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @09:59PM (#398310) Homepage

          Shadows near the terminator (day-night "line" for the surface of the moon) should be longer, and they are not.

          How long should they be? Which specific feature's shadow did you measure, and how did you do so?

          Sun shining on a sphere from infinity cannot uniformly light it up, there needs to be some specular effect, and there isn't any.

          The moon doesn't have a shiny surface. It has a matte one. And not just matte, but rough. That makes shading of the sort I assume you're talking about hard to see, but it's there.

          But if you believe there is no "specularity" where there should be, what does this mean for what you think the moon to be? Are you, then, suggesting that it is not a sphere, but another flat disc?

          Do you see now?

          I now understand what you mean. I still haven't seen any evidence of any "impossible" sighting of the ISS, though. At what date, time, and location did you see an illuminated ISS when you should not have been able to? Did you measure the duration and position in the sky? Did you happen to note which constellations it was passing through?

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
          • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:12PM

            by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:12PM (#398317) Homepage

            PS the moon isn't just matte. The fine dust of the regolith gives it some retro-reflective qualities. This causes more light to be scattered back in the direction it came from than you would otherwise expect. This will make a full moon appear even flatter than it otherwise would.

            --
            systemd is Roko's Basilisk
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:18AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 07 2016, @12:18AM (#398406)

            I strongly disagree with your moon arguments and data and have several counterpoints, but this is getting a very long discussion already and I have other matters to attend to. I am not deflecting you and I will try to pick this up at a later time.

            I now understand what you mean.

            Good!

            At what date, time, and location did you see an illuminated ISS when you should not have been able to?

            I am sorry, but I cannot give you my location. As soon as this stops being an issue for me, you can have my home address for what I care, topped with an open invitation to come over and help out or even oversee experiments.

            What I can give you is a tip that you can get predictions from the isstracker dot com website. Use a future date, and see where the 'ISS' is to show up. Its inclination is such that if you live further north than London it will never pass directly over you, so you are out of luck. Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before it passes overhead from a place near you while you are several hours after sunset, and it should be trivial for you to find an appropriate location and time to that end.

            PS: Only if you feel "sufficiently motivated", of course. Nobody is forcing anything on anybody.

            • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:36AM

              by wonkey_monkey (279) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @07:36AM (#398609) Homepage

              What I can give you is a tip that you can get predictions from the isstracker dot com website.

              Who are presumably part of the flat Earth conspiracy themselves, since their calculations wouldn't make sense otherwise.

              Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before it passes overhead from a place near you while you are several hours after sunset, and it should be trivial for you to find an appropriate location and time to that end.

              I've seen it, several times. I've also seen it fade as it enters the Earth's shadow. I guess they didn't forget to turn the lights off that time.

              --
              systemd is Roko's Basilisk
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:21PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 07 2016, @01:21PM (#398673) Journal

              Otherwise, it is just a matter of time before it passes overhead from a place near you while you are several hours after sunset, and it should be trivial for you to find an appropriate location and time to that end.

              You need more than that. You need to know when the ISS will be in sunlight and when it won't. Several hours after sunset is not that far away from sunset at the higher latitudes, particularly in summer (for whichever hemisphere you are observing from). For example, 22 degrees of rotation is not 22 degrees of separation at 45 degrees latitude (which is my latitude incidentally). Rather it is about 15 degrees of separation (divide by square root of two) due to the lesser movement of rotation at the latitude (you're closer to the axis of rotation and don't move as far). The most extreme case would be at the pole where you rotate as much as you'd like, but it won't change the apparent elevation of the Sun because you aren't actually moving anywhere.

              Also, let us note that it is completely irrelevant to the discussion of the supposedly fake Moon landings whether the ISS glows or not.

              Its inclination is such that if you live further north than London it will never pass directly over you, so you are out of luck.

              Inclination? You blew off a bunch of physics and geometry earlier in the thread when it didn't suit you. But now the ISS has some parameter called "inclination" which actually matters. The same math and physics which can tell you very precisely where the ISS will be, is the same math and physics that tells us the Moon is something we can walk on.

      • (Score: 1) by EETech1 on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:11AM

        by EETech1 (957) on Wednesday September 07 2016, @03:11AM (#398513)

        I've seen the ISS hundreds of times, and many (if not most) times it disappears suddenly as it goes into the shadow of the Earth.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:48PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 06 2016, @10:48PM (#398338) Journal

      What makes you believe that the Moon is a place that you can actually 'go' and 'walk on'? Is it the "1+1=2 and the Earth is a Globe" motto back when you were little? Is it various 'sciency' stuff you made and were exposed to as a kid? Were you told that being an astronaut is a hero thing to be? TV shows and movies? What?

      First, we can establish the Moon's distance by bouncing radio waves off of the Moon. It's routinely done by ham operators. That also establishes the Moon as something that reflects radio waves. Second, we can directly measure the tidal forces of the Moon. That combined with its orbital period give a pretty good estimate of both the Earth and Moon's masses. We can easily measure its apparent width from Earth and that gives us an idea of its density which is consistent with Earth's crust. We don't see waves and such, so it's a solid object. Solid objects of that density can be walked on.

      As to the observations you've claimed to have made, I don't believe you could make a good portion of those and still be operating in good faith. I don't know if you are outright lying or merely being extremely biased in your observations.