Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Friday September 01 2017, @07:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the open-mailbox dept.

Spotted at Andrew Plotkin's blog is an interesting article on the two word control panel in the original Apollo Guidance Computer, which talks about the use of "VERB" and "NOUN" controls on the original instrument panel.

This then links to a Discover Magazine Article How Verbs and Nouns Got Apollo to the Moon, which describes how the Apollo astronauts interacted with the guidance computer by:

[...] entering Noun-Verb combination commands in lieu of a string of written words. To keep it simple, the commands were written out in short hand. For example, V37N31E stood for Verb 37 Noun 31 and Enter to get the program running.

[...] It might not seem like it, but the Noun-Verb arrangement and verbiage comes from the fact that the computer engineers who built and used the Apollo guidance computer were also inventing it as they went along. They didn't have backgrounds in computer engineering because the field didn't exist then as it does today. But they all spoke English, so carrying over the same language structure simplified things for everyone. It's a perfect example of the brilliant simplicity that went into so much engineering of the Apollo era.


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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Insightful) by ledow on Friday September 01 2017, @07:52AM (16 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Friday September 01 2017, @07:52AM (#562435) Homepage

    And very well known to anyone who even looked at things like Apollo, even casually.

    I bought "The Apollo Guidance Computer" book from Amazon for a birthday gift only recently, but it's been in print for years.

    Verb-Noun wasn't unique to Apollo, isn't a bad idea anyway, and there aren't too many alternative ways to do things if you sit and think about it - and the more limited you are, the more it makes sense.

    There's a reason that old text adventures used the same system, independently (I don't imagine many Apollo software engineers went on to work for Codemasters...) - when you're that limited on RAM, and want to communicate, verb-noun is about the only way that makes sense (DROP SWORD, ATTACK DRAGON, etc.)

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @08:16AM (#562438)

    It's not a coincidence that Andrew Plotkin is famous for interactive fiction. I recognized his name immediately as the author of mind screwy text adventures. "So Far" never finished. To say "A Change in the Weather" is unforgiving would be an understatement.

    Nice to see he's a blogger now. That's now celebrities maintain their fame, wouldn't want to fade into obscurity.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:59PM (14 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @02:59PM (#562525)

    A rare view of the Apollo 11 control panel can be seen in the Apollo 11 footage of astronauts taking a picture of earth from beyond the lethal Van-Allen belts. [youtube.com]

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday September 01 2017, @03:23PM (13 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday September 01 2017, @03:23PM (#562540)

      A rare view of the Apollo 11 control panel can be seen in the Apollo 11 footage of astronauts taking a picture of earth from beyond the lethal Van-Allen belts. [youtube.com]

      Lethal? You got a source for that?

      These so called Van Allen belts, where the Earth's magnetic field collects solar radiation, would be dangerous only if people were to hang out there for several days. The astronauts whizzed through in a matter of hours, and received a radiation dose similar to an X-ray. "You can pass through quite safely as long as you don't linger too long," Millard says.

      source [theguardian.com]

      The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[31] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, and only passed through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][32]

      Astronauts' overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth's magnetic field. The total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[31]

      So saying "lethal" is about as accurate as the newscaster in Apollo 13 [wikipedia.org] calling carbon dioxide "poisonous gas."

      CO2 is an asphyxiant gas and not classified as toxic or harmful in accordance with Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals standards of United Nations Economic Commission for Europe by using the OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. In concentrations up to 1% (10,000 ppm), it will make some people feel drowsy and give the lungs a stuffy feeling.[104] Concentrations of 7% to 10% (70,000 to 100,000 ppm) may cause suffocation, even in the presence of sufficient oxygen, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.[106]

      There are plenty of things that are good in limited amounts that are harmful in higher concentrations.

      Anyway, to get back to the point--there are all kinds of radiation that will kill you if you absorb enough of them. Hell, if you stood next to a microwave continuously operating for a whole year I bet* you could get cancer, even though it's shielded. Or next to the reactor at Chernobyl for a second or two during the meltdown and be fine afterwards.

      *wiki [wikipedia.org]

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:11PM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @04:11PM (#562568)

        You didn't watch the link. The video shows Apollo 11 astronauts faking the distant earth image from low earth orbit, not even having passed through the Van Allen belts.

        • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday September 01 2017, @04:26PM

          by DECbot (832) on Friday September 01 2017, @04:26PM (#562572) Journal

          Wait... they were in orbit? I thought they never left the movie set. Next thing you'll tell me is they were actually golfing on the freaking moon!

          --
          cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
        • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 01 2017, @04:45PM (9 children)

          by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 01 2017, @04:45PM (#562581) Homepage

          That commentary is completely disingenous. Armstrong says they blocked out the light from the other windows, then the commentary states that this to stop the inside walls from showing - but he never says that. It could be just as reasonable to assume it's to stop reflections being seen in the glass of the window.

          The idea that the view is just a small circular cut out through a window is utter bollocks, frankly. It wouldn't look anything like that. The inside and outside of the window form two different sized halves of a circle? Drivel.

          --
          systemd is Roko's Basilisk
          • (Score: 1) by MyOpinion on Friday September 01 2017, @08:43PM (6 children)

            by MyOpinion (6561) on Friday September 01 2017, @08:43PM (#562715) Homepage Journal

            but he never says that.

            Then focus on what he does say: the argument, in its base, is that "we did not know of the radiation zone back then."

            So, the radiation was not dangerous because it had not been discovered yet?

            The idea that the view is just a small circular cut out through a window is utter bollocks, frankly. It wouldn't look anything like that.

            Disagree. Counter-argument: next time you fly over the desert (or anywhere really, desert is more fun), raise exposure and grab a picture of it through the aircraft window. Tint it a bit, add a spacecraft, and whoever sees it will believe it is Mars.

            Ask your filmography/photography friends for their opinion.

            My take is that "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon" is an eye-opener. Truth is not afraid of scrutiny (or anything, really).

            --
            Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
            • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 01 2017, @09:04PM (5 children)

              by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 01 2017, @09:04PM (#562723) Homepage

              So, the radiation was not dangerous because it had not been discovered yet?

              No, it's not dangerous because it's not dangerous (or at least, not as immediately fatal as Moon hoax proponents claims; astronauts do, of course, have higher cancer rates than others).

              My take is that "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon" is an eye-opener. Truth is not afraid of scrutiny (or anything, really).

              Latching onto and sucking up this kind of conspiratorial nonsense because it makes people feel clever is no substitute for the actual truth. Man going to the moon is one of the most well-documented events of the past 100 years. The conspiracy theories that surround it are driven by ignorance, an unwillingness to admit to it, and probably fears of inadequacy in some cases. It's Emperor's New Clothes.

              Every Moon-landing-hoax argument has been rationally countered time and time again, but since such people didn't rationally argue their way into this position, you can't rationally argue them out of it.

              --
              systemd is Roko's Basilisk
              • (Score: 0) by MyOpinion on Saturday September 02 2017, @08:00PM (4 children)

                by MyOpinion (6561) on Saturday September 02 2017, @08:00PM (#562998) Homepage Journal

                No, it's not dangerous because it's not dangerous

                You are arguing from a point of ignorance: using italics and regurgitating is yelling, it is not arguing. Facts please.

                because it makes people feel clever

                Ad-hominem and assumptions is not discussing, it is ad-hominem and assumptions. If you fancy yourself yelling, at least admit that this is your opinion and leave it at that.

                Man going to the moon is one of the most well-documented events of the past 100 years.

                You are deluded, man. Tim Peak admits that "unfortunately we destroyed this technology"; NASA's Orion program advertises that they have no clue how to pass the radiation zones; the landing module looks like a homeless shelter, now that you can HD zoom in: there is duct tape, curtain rods and paper; negatives and telemetry gets lost, found, and lost again; moon rocks turn out to be petrified wood; there is space for golf clubs and a golf cart that "makes rooster tails" (in vacuo), but there is no space for a small telescope; the physical bodies of the suited-up crew do not fit in the module; the famous "Earth from Moon" picture shows a rectangular crop box around the Earth when you get it into image software and adjust the levels; even worse, the original image was replaced, and now the crop box is still there (but not rectangular); the trajectory of the module launching out and away from the lander has been debunked time and time again by physicists with Ph.D. degrees, and not by your random Joe Crank Crackpot local scientist that levitates stuff in his garage or whatever.

                If in court, would you accept a cropped and manipulated image of a crime scene? Isn't that ALONE reasonable doubt enough for you?

                Now then, can you DISCUSS this, and can you explain to me what is a crop box doing in "one of the most well-documented events of the past 100 years", or will you keep on smacking that "Troll" button?

                --
                Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
                • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Sunday September 03 2017, @10:05AM (3 children)

                  by wonkey_monkey (279) on Sunday September 03 2017, @10:05AM (#563103) Homepage

                  Facts please.

                  I wouldn't expect you to accept any. They'd all just be part of the conspiracy.

                  Ad-hominem and assumptions is not discussing, it is ad-hominem and assumptions.

                  No it's not, it's a relevant analysis of the psychology surrounding the widespread and unsupportable belief in conspiracy theories. It makes people feel good to think they're above the majority of the public in some way, they have more insight and more knowledge, and it doesn't matter whether they're actually correct or not. https://xkcd.com/610/ [xkcd.com]

                  Tim Peak admits that "unfortunately we destroyed this technology";

                  Which technology? What's the full quote?

                  NASA's Orion program advertises that they have no clue how to pass the radiation zones;

                  No it didn't. A slightly hyped-up presentation for pubilc consumption is not an engineering document. Note that (if you're quoting from the same video everyone else does) he makes reference to the danger to the electronics, which were much simpler and much less susceptible in the Apollo days.

                  The Van Allen belts are no more dangerous to humans, for the amount of time spent in them, than a few X-rays.

                  Also note that just because one spaceship might be shielded in one way, it doesn't mean the problem is automatically solved for every other spaceship ever.

                  a golf cart that "makes rooster tails" (in vacuo)

                  Which is exactly what one would expect. It makes perfect parabolic rooster tails with no billowing. If you think that's evidence against the moon landing, it really shows how clueless you are.

                  but there is no space for a small telescope

                  What use would a telescope have been? They were there to explore the Moon, not look at the stars.

                  the physical bodies of the suited-up crew do not fit in the module

                  Yes they do. You're probably referring to the claim that a fully suited astronaut couldn't fit through the top hatch, but a) that hatch was used to pass between Lunar module and the CSM, not to go outside and b) the PLSS backpacks were stored in the Lunar module so never passed through that hatch at all.

                  the famous "Earth from Moon" picture shows a rectangular crop box around the Earth when you get it into image software and adjust the levels; even worse, the original image was replaced, and now the crop box is still there (but not rectangular);

                  Citation?

                  Photos get edited all the time. Looking back, it probably wasn't the best idea given the hysteria it generates, but it was probably an entirely innocent attempt to prettify an image used for PR purposes, not scientific ones.

                  You can see this kind of thing crop up in nature documentaries, despite the furore that occasionally erupts. Repeated shots of degus and duplicated penguins spring to mind. It's not a malicious attempt to cover anything up.

                  the trajectory of the module launching out and away from the lander has been debunked time and time again by physicists with Ph.D. degrees

                  No it hasn't.

                  --
                  systemd is Roko's Basilisk
                  • (Score: 0) by MyOpinion on Monday September 04 2017, @10:02PM (2 children)

                    by MyOpinion (6561) on Monday September 04 2017, @10:02PM (#563589) Homepage Journal

                    Which is exactly what one would expect. It makes perfect parabolic rooster tails with no billowing.

                    You misunderstand: see here [youtube.com], "rooster trails" with billowing, NOT parabolic.

                    I wouldn't expect you to accept any. They'd all just be part of the conspiracy.

                    Did I mention "conspiracy"? No I did not: you brought it up. You waste your time trying to label me with your ad-hominem and you evade arguments, and you try to come about as "immune to those silly conspiracy theories". Label how you will, this is not going to work for you, because science is about sticking to facts and objective verifiable truths, and because the discussion will be archived for everyone in the future to browse through it. I am not making any extraordinary claims here (like "I went to the moon and back"), I merely demand proof for them, and first thing that happens is a personal attack from you and troll tagging.

                    So, according to you, a "Troll" is someone that dares question NASA, with evidence.

                    What use would a telescope have been?

                    You cannot be serious: what use would a telescope have been, with no atmosphere to block it? Think again.

                    In any case, it would be much more useful than golf clubs.

                    Citation?

                    Which technology? What's the full quote?

                    Again, treat this as a court case. The image is manipulated, and it has a crop box around it. That casts reasonable doubt. The original image, from NASA (download it and examine it YOURSELF, do not take my word for it) It would not work as alibi for, say, some crime committed where Aldrin is a suspect, and he provides this picture as his alibi ("I was on the moon, your Honor. Here is a photograph showing the Earth from the moon.")

                    the trajectory of the module launching out and away from the lander has been debunked

                    No it hasn't.

                    Yes it has [aulis.com].

                    As for "Tim Peak", sorry I meant "Don Pettit" [youtube.com]. Watch him here spending your tax money in "important space experiments" [youtube.com].

                    You are stuck on a "yes it is" and "no it's not" mindset yelling your opinion as fact and not backing it up, yet you demand to be spoon-fed citations and facts like a spoiled child; you demand without providing yourself; you try to "brand" me as a conspiracy theorist or whatever instead of sticking to the facts; you employ bias and ignore points that are not convenient to the side you are biased to (like the moon rock, and the way you brush off the doctored photographs) hence I will not give a rat's ass for "offending" your feelings on your astronaut heroes or NASA- especially since I do not find the moon landing a convincing story, I stand my ground AND am backing it up with facts, as science needs to be observable, testable, repeatable and verifiable, and all you do is yell. I will gladly stand my ground until I am blue in the face when having to deal with mindsets like the one you are trapped into. But here, since I find this "moon landing" extremely unconvincing, and it is very unbecoming of you to try ad-hominem personal attacks against someone that has an opinion that you do not agree with, go ahead and have the last word if you want: I am not going to bother more with you until you demonstrate that you can maintain a civilized scientific discussion based on common sense and FACTS and not on hear-say, old wives tales and speculation.

                    --
                    Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
                    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:37PM

                      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:37PM (#563809) Homepage

                      You misunderstand: see here [youtube.com], "rooster trails" with billowing, NOT parabolic.

                      I understood perfectly. That's not billowing. Billowing looks like this [youtube.com].

                      Did I mention "conspiracy"? No I did not

                      But there must be one if the moon landings were faked. You can't believe the Moon landings were hoaxed without believeing there was a conspiracy to do so.

                      and first thing that happens is a personal attack

                      I haven't personally attacked you at all. I merely outlined what I would honestly expect to happen.

                      So, according to you, a "Troll"...

                      I haven't said that word once in this discussion, so I don't know why you keep bringing it up as if I have.

                      You cannot be serious: what use would a telescope have been, with no atmosphere to block it? Think again.

                      What use would a telescope have been for exploring the Moon/scoring Cold War points, which is what they were there to do?

                      If NASA had wanted a telescope in space they would have and could have just sent one up to LEO for a fraction of the cost. Whatever time was spent doing science on the Moon should be spent doing Moon science. That's just common sense.

                      Again, treat this as a court case. The image is manipulated, and it has a crop box around it.

                      When I said "citation needed" earlier it was a pithy way of saying "what image?" So... what image?

                      Yes it has [aulis.com].

                      He's likely inferring too much from a low quality video, but forgive me if I don't take the time to read and understand the entire paper (have you done so? Could you repeat the process?). There's no way you can accurately measure the angular width of the vehicle for more than a few seconds of that footage, for a start. More info here [braeunig.us], particularly the last section, last sentence notwithstanding.

                      you employ bias and ignore points that are not convenient to the side you are biased to (like the moon rock, and the way you brush off the doctored photographs)

                      The main problem is that I haven't got time to start trying to work out exactly what particular piece of evidence you're talking about when you briefly mention one thing or another. I can't read your mind.

                      What doctored photographs, for instance? I mean, which ones specifically? I can hardly argue the point if I don't know which photo(s) you're talking about.

                      I am not going to bother more with you until you demonstrate that you can maintain a civilized scientific discussion

                      I've been perfectly civilized. I didn't call you deluded.

                      And why are you acting like I should be grateful that you've deigned to engage with me? You're just some guy behind a keyboard, same as me.

                      --
                      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
                    • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:42PM

                      by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:42PM (#563813) Homepage

                      And re: Don Petit. Do we have any working lunar modules? Or Saturn V rockets? Do any/all of the factories and processes used in the manufacturer of those things still exist?

                      I don't see how his choice of words is evidence of anything.

                      --
                      systemd is Roko's Basilisk
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @09:18PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 01 2017, @09:18PM (#562730)

            That video is at its most convincing around 5:13. Perhaps you gave up on it before then.

            • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday September 02 2017, @10:49AM

              by wonkey_monkey (279) on Saturday September 02 2017, @10:49AM (#562902) Homepage

              Do you mean 35:13? 5:13 is just rhetorical guff. I mean, the whole thing's rhetorical guff, but still.

              If you mean the Hubble comparison, that's just a load of old bollocks as well. "100 times more complicated" is meaningless journalised gibberish. Far, far more time and money was spent on Apollo than Hubble. I'm sure if they'd had a chance to do multiple test runs they could have got Hubble right on the "first time" as well.

              You might as well conclude that every successful mission must be a hoax, because sometimes missions don't go to plan.

              --
              systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @02:24AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 02 2017, @02:24AM (#562814)

        no. 2.4 GHz is not ionizing. But cataracts or skin burns, sure.