
July 20, 1969: One Giant Leap For Mankind (2013) - houseofshards
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/apollo11_40th.html
======
tdicola
The thing that really shocked me about the Apollo missions was how quickly
they jumped from testing the hardware to actual mission to the moon. The
_second_ manned launch of Apollo (and _first_ manned launch of the incredible
Saturn V rocket) went straight out to the moon and orbited before returning
back to Earth! The next missions did a few tests of the lunar lander in space,
and the fifth manned mission was Apollo 11 which finally landed. Crazy to
think of all the systems, hardware, etc. that just had a couple shakedown
flights before the real deal. Incredibly impressive engineering to pull off
such a feat without more problems.

~~~
blantonl
Even more shocking is the fact that today's cell phones have more computing
power than the Apollo computers had - talk about optimizing your code! Just
think of the code reviews those developers went through.

And, all the work that the Apollo program brought forth with physics,
electronics, etc has powered decades of innovation.

~~~
mikeash
Forget cell phones, your _keyboard_ has vastly more power than the Apollo
computers.

~~~
kabdib
The power sequencer I worked with recently for an embedded system was a 16Mhz
general purpose 8-bit processor with a bunch of 16 bit instructions and 24 bit
addressing.

It cost 17 cents; I'm guessing this is a fraction of the cost of a single BIT
of the Apollo computers.

~~~
lmkg
I assume you're aware, but for the general audience: Every _bit_ of memory on
space shuttles was an individual physical bead stored in a hand-woven wire
grid, with memory contents stored as magnetic orientation. This style of
storage was the only available at the time, but continued through the 80's for
robustness. No power to maintain memory, and practically immune to bit-flips
caused by cosmic radiation.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core_memory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_core_memory)

The article states that the price of a single bit varied from $1 to $0.01 USD
over the product lifetime. I would assume that NASA paid extra for higher
reliability. 17 cents for a single bit is well within the cost range of a
single bit, and a reasonable estimate for that time period.

... jesus tap-dancing christ, a whole dollar for a single BIT? Wolfram|Alpha
says that a dollar in 1955 would be worth almost $9 today. The memory in my
desktop would be worth more than the GDP of all but 10 US states o_0

~~~
SoftwareMaven
The Apollo memory, which was rope core memory, was also known at LOL memory,
or "little old lady" memory, since it was women, with their quilting, knitting
and crocheting skills, who wove it.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8148730.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8148730.stm)

------
trothamel
Perhaps of relevance to Hacker News:

Four minutes before the moon landing, the Apollo Guidance Computer began
throwing 1202 and 1201 alarms - indicating that it wasn't completing its
processing loop in time.

Here's the audio from the flight director and guidance loops, as they
troubleshooted the problem in real time, clearing Apollo 11 to land.

[http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35230.0](http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35230.0)

~~~
ArkyBeagle
Jack Garman had hand-written down all the trouble codes on a "cheat sheet".
He's the one who called "go". I am not even sure if the MIT software team knew
what 1201 and 1202 were.

The AGC was one of the first to use priority multitasking. The 1201 and 1201
faults were indication that lower priority tasks were getting yanked.

See "Moon Machines". Seriously.

~~~
dm2
What would be an example of a lower-priority task in this situation?

A couple of links to the videos you mentioned:

[http://www.sciencechannel.com/video-topics/space-
videos/moon...](http://www.sciencechannel.com/video-topics/space-videos/moon-
machines.htm)

The above is probably one of the most informative 2 minute videos I've ever
seen.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWcITjqZtpU&list=PL7E6922816...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWcITjqZtpU&list=PL7E69228169F0FA1B)

"there were no specs, we made it up" "if you screwed up you got a stack of
papers that was 2 feet thick" "the overall memory for the Apollo guidance
computer was 72 kilobytes"

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClDdlBdSzrWIUijnnUDXobw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClDdlBdSzrWIUijnnUDXobw)

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNpdHqZ5OmFOnICpZz4Mflw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNpdHqZ5OmFOnICpZz4Mflw)

~~~
XorNot
Clicked into the first one and got a thing about the insulation between the
tanks - the 3rd video in the playlist was about them hiring surfboard makers
to do the honeycomb insulation between the fuel tanks, since they had more
experience working with the materials in the heat conditions.

Just another kind of "the space program was amazing" thing - the sheer
diversity of people who got hired on to contribute is continually surprising.
An amazing tribute to the pragmatism of NASA under the conditions.

------
jf
I highly recommend the Discovery Channel mini-series "When We Left Earth: The
NASA Missions". This mini-series covers the entire breadth of the NASA
missions, from Mercury to the International Space Station. This series is
available on Netflix: www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70218722

If "When We Left Earth" sparks your interest. I suggest watching "Apollo 13"
and "The Right Stuff" next.

Lastly, I'm currently reading the excellent book "Moon Lander: How We
Developed the Apollo Lunar Module". This book gives an insiders view of what
it took to build the Lunar Module (LM). I particularly appreciate that the
book covers a lot of the hard work, arguments, and drama that are often
forgotten when we romanticize the past.

~~~
jedberg
You forgot "From the Earth to the Moon", which was an excellent miniseries
produced by the same team that did Apollo 13.

~~~
js2
Largely based on _A Man on the Moon_ by Andrew Chaikin. Excellent read.

------
pitchups
And remarkably, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) operated at just 0.043 Mhz
(43 KHz) and had just 64 Kilobytes of memory. There is more computing power in
modern toasters and by comparison the smartphones we all carry around today
are supercomputers!

And the complete listing of the AGC can actually be downloaded as a PDF here :

[http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/a...](http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/apollo/public/archive/1701.pdf)

And for the Lunar Lander here:

[http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/a...](http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5456/1/hrst.mit.edu/hrs/apollo/public/archive/1729.pdf)

It is fascinating to go through it!

------
callmeed
I know we marvel at the pace of technology lately but it blows my mind that
humankind went from:

0\. Bicycles in the early/mid 19th century (depending on your definition)

1\. to motorized cars 50ish years later

2\. to actually flying at the turn of the 20th century

3\. to transporting humans into space and then on the moon just 66 years later

I'd argue we haven't made such large, significant technology leaps in such a
short span (just over 100 years) since then. Not sure we ever will (hopefully
with energy).

~~~
krisgee
>I'd argue we haven't made such large, significant technology leaps in such a
short span

In 1999 I used a card catalog at my rural library to get an encyclopedia from
19 _8_ 9.

Just today I used my cell phone to call my friend who is quite literally
halfway around the world and had a real time video chat with her. This
happened in 14 years.

~~~
dingaling
> ... and had a real time video chat with her

I'm not sure that's a particularly inspiring example of technology progress.

In 1999 video conferencing over the Internet was already a reality, though it
was very low quality. I know we tried it in work around that time. Skype
launched in 2003 and basically solved that problem.

So in the next 11 years the main development was in wireless networking, which
was basically a refinement of military datalinks which had been in service at
least since the AN/ARR-39 of 1956.

~~~
mootothemax
_So in the next 11 years the main development was in wireless networking,
which was basically a refinement of military datalinks which had been in
service at least since the AN /ARR-39 of 1956._

You might as well write the whole lot off as a glorified telegram, if that's
the stance you're going to take.

~~~
krisgee
Well the internet is essentially just a really fast mail horse so there
haven't been any improvements in communication for thousands of years!

------
CmonDev
Leaps of mankind in this particular field:

1) first satellite - USSR;

2) first man in space - USSR;

3) first man-made object to impact Moon - USSR;

4) first man-made object to land Moon - USSR;

...

~~~
mpyne
5) Best scale model imitation of the US space shuttle.

6) first failed Mars probe (and second, and third, and fourth, and fifth...)

It's possible to commemorate LANDING A MAN ON THE MOON, on its anniversary,
without it necessarily having to be a political dick-waving contest you know.

But since you brought it up, it does make you wonder how the US so completely
outleaped the USSR to the moon, given how far ahead the USSR was in space
development. The USSR wasn't even second to putting a man on the moon, no one
has done it since Apollo.

~~~
rsynnott
> Best scale model imitation of the US space shuttle.

Scale model? It was about the same size, though internally very different
(it's thought that they used the shape to save on doing some of their own re-
entry validation).

[http://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/img/STS-Buran-
grand.jpg](http://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/img/STS-Buran-grand.jpg)

It's really kind of ridiculous how similar it looked versus how different it
was; the big thing on the Buran stack is a rocket, not a tank, for instance,
and the boosters are kerosene.

> But since you brought it up, it does make you wonder how the US so
> completely outleaped the USSR to the moon, given how far ahead the USSR was
> in space development.

Well, first, the USSR wasn't that far ahead, perhaps a few years. But its moon
programme was inadequately funded (and not funded at all until 1963 or so),
not terribly focussed (there were designs based on Proton/Zond for flybys,
tested unmanned shortly before Apollo 10, based on the N1, a giant kerosene
rocket, on the UR-700, an ultimately undeveloped giant Proton, and so on), and
subject to political interference, both from the government, and between the
design bureaus.

It also wasn't pursued as the ultimate goal in the same way the US one was; at
the time the USSR was also working on the Almaz (later Salyut) space stations,
an automated sample return system, a greater focus on interplanetary probes
(albeit without much success except for the Venus stuff) and other bits and
pieces.

If they'd been willing to take the risk, they could probably have had the
first manned flyby; there were a number of Zond missions, using a modified
Soyuz, unmanned, in the couple of years before Apollo 10. It would have been
_extremely_ risky, though; most of the Zond missions were at least partial
failures.

------
JVIDEL
In a little over 60 years we went from rickety wood planes that could barely
fly a few meters to walking on the surface of the moon.

~~~
peter303
My grandfather lived through that era. he grew up before planes, mass cars and
electrifcation. And died after the moon landing, PCs and TVs. Didnt make it to
smartphones.

------
nether
We mighty app developers are following in their legacy. God bless.

~~~
bennettfeely
I hope you're kidding.

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
I'm waiting for the 'Let's build a Moonbase' Kickstarter.

~~~
seanflyon
Next best thing:

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/michaellaine/space-
elev...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/michaellaine/space-elevator-
science-climb-to-the-sky-a-tethered)

------
quarterwave
Growing up in the early 70's (1970's, that is) I got a small book as birthday
present: 'Let's go to the moon'. It was about a bunch of racoons that build a
lunar rocket, and a sly fox named Reynard up to no good. Wonderfully
illustrated with racoons drawing up plans, wearing goggles, and welding away.
Does anyone else remember this masterpiece?

------
espiffany
NASA is currently "live" streaming the mission:

[http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html](http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html)

~~~
phkahler
>> NASA is currently "live" streaming the mission:

Like an old man telling a story about the good old days. Because, you know, it
was the greatest thing NASA ever did and it was 45 years ago.

------
kschua
Good luck Mr Gorsky

------
ermintrude
I'd like to see some refutation of the claims in this film (and not by the guy
- physicist as I recall - in the film who just hand-waves say "well we know
they went there and it can't possibly have been a hoax"):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5w0pm24ic](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo5w0pm24ic)

~~~
rquantz
Why bother? People who believe that one of the most documented events in human
history, in which 100s of thousands of people took part, was a hoax are not
going to be convinced by refutation of the supposed "evidence" they bring
forth.

~~~
ermintrude
Because if you watch that film and believe Apollo went to the moon, the only
conclusion is that light has different properties on the moon compared to
Earth.

I'd like to know what could explain, for example, their shadows lengthening
significantly when they move a small distance as shown in the NASA footage
better than "the astronauts were close to a large artificial light source" as
they claim in the film that physics implies.

~~~
rquantz
I don't know the answer to that. But this is just another in a long line of
theories about the shadows in the photos and videos from the lunar surface,
all of which are based on ignorance of how photographs work and how three-
dimensional space translates into two dimensional images. Every claim of the
conspiracy theorists gets proven wrong and then they come up with something
else. Sometimes, things they offer as proof that the landing was a fake are
actually proof that they're real! They say that it was obviously a set because
that hill is in the background of two photos that were supposedly taken miles
apart. Well, that's because the "hill" is a mountain bigger than any mountain
on Earth, and if you analyse the parallax effect on that mountain in the two
images it is consistent with the distance between the two photos.

The point is that googling just about any claim from the conspiracy theorists
will return results debunking those claims by experts in photography or other
relevant fields, and if it doesn't, that's only because the claim is something
new enough that the sisyphean debunkers, who undoubtedly have better things to
do with their time given that _they actually know what they 're talking
about_, haven't gotten around to it yet.

You can point to some trivia or artifact of photography that you don't
understand and cling to that as proof of the hoax, whereas I can point to
_rocks that came from the moon_ , or to the fact that ham radio operators were
able to pick up the tv transmission from the moon by pointing their receivers
at the moon, or the fact that some of the missions placed mirrors on the moon
that various third parties have bounced light off of. My evidence beats your
"evidence."

