Apollo computer

I had a high school teacher in like 1990 that went on and on about how his Casio digital calculator watch had more horsepower and memory than the stuff they used for the Apollo missions. Actually kinda scary if you stop to think about it... so don't.

edit - also don't think too hard about the computers that control our nuclear missile arsenal... all ancient and some using floppy disks. But hey at least they can't be hacked, we hope.
 
Last edited:
That’s some archaic stuff. Even a caveman can use it.
I know you are being facetious, but I doubt anyone under the age of 70 would even begin to know how to operate any of that equipment.
Mathematicians, assembly language programmers, and engineers who studied and practiced with such systems in the 1950s and 1960s (maybe the 1970s) would know how to work, operate, and maintain such equipment.

Just because it has a low processing and memory count doesn't make it "simple" or easy to use by any stretch.
Credit and respect where it is due to those who worked on, and engineered, such systems.


From the article:
Your dishwasher has more brain power than the computer that flew the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. But don’t let your dishwasher take control of your spaceship anytime soon. That’s not a measure of how basic the Apollo computers were, but rather how much the engineers and programmers in the 1960s were able to do with the modest computing power that was available to them.

I work on "retro" and legacy systems from the 1980s-present, and the older the systems are, the more custom, proprietary, and difficult they are to use; I can only fathom how systems from the 1960s operated, especially without higher-level programming languages, and oh lord - microcode and assembly language, for the entire system! :eek:
A modern smartphone has the processing power of an early 90s supercomputer, yet a toddler can operate it with ease - that doesn't make the toddler smart, it just means the technology is that simple to use now (props to the programmers and engineers who made it that simple to use).

These 1960s computers had less processing power than an Arduino controller has now, but the engineering and resourcefulness to make such an insignificant amount of processing power assist humankind with going to the moon was truly incredible.
This was much more of an undertaking than pressing "Install" to install one's Netflix app on their smartphone...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Hamilton_(software_engineer)

Margaret Hamilton is a genius and a master programmer and systems engineer - I could only dream of one day being that incredible, if ever!

margaret-hamilton-mit-apollo-code_0.jpg

(those stacks are Margaret Hamilton's Apollo code for the lunar module and command module)

Margaret Hamilton in 2009:
“From my own perspective, the software experience itself (designing it, developing it, evolving it, watching it perform and learning from it for future systems) was at least as exciting as the events surrounding the mission. … There was no second chance. We knew that. We took our work seriously, many of us beginning this journey while still in our 20s. Coming up with solutions and new ideas was an adventure. Dedication and commitment were a given. Mutual respect was across the board. Because software was a mystery, a black box, upper management gave us total freedom and trust. We had to find a way and we did. Looking back, we were the luckiest people in the world; there was no choice but to be pioneers.”

Margaret Hamilton in 2017:


http://news.mit.edu/2016/scene-at-mit-margaret-hamilton-apollo-code-0817

https://qz.com/726338/the-code-that...-to-github-and-its-like-a-1960s-time-capsule/

Again, credit where credit is due!
Her Apollo 11 code is also publicly available on GitHub:

https://github.com/chrislgarry/Apollo-11/

 
Last edited:
I had a guy come in to my shop several months ago who worked on several of the early NASA missions. He had programmed a number of those early systems in machine code etc. Im a bit fuzzy on it all now. He also talked about how he had dumpster dove behind Apple's first store and had recovered some of their discarded logic boards and figured out how to put them to use unofficially.

I had no reason to doubt him at any rate, as he was old and spoke about it all in levels of detail that suggested he really knew his shit..
 
edit - also don't think too hard about the computers that control our nuclear missile arsenal... all ancient and some using floppy disks. But hey at least they can't be hacked, we hope.
Yep, they are all using 8" floppy diskette drives - those were considered old and legacy in the early 1980s, and were phased out completely in the world by the late 1980s.
They also utilize 24v lines instead of 12v lines due to the large motors required to spin up the diskette.

I know how to use 8" FDDs on semi-modern systems, and have a self-assembled kit and 24v PSU with molex connectors for them with one of D Bit's 50-pin Shugart SA800 to 34-pin FDD adapters - I won't be trying to hack any nuclear silo systems any time soon, though. ;)
Props to D Bit for making the converter PCBs for them!

http://www.dbit.com/fdadap.html

fdadap.jpg


Also helpful for making a cable adapter: http://www.classiccmp.org/dunfield/img54306/cnct.htm
 
Last edited:
I always found it fascinating. With the space program (same as nuclear technology at the time) it really is amazing that humans were able to pull it off. Our technology sucked and we were really pushing the boundaries of what it was capable of.

Also interesting, during the landing of the LEM during Apollo 11, the guidance computer failed. Apparently there was too much data for the computer to handle! Armstrong and Aldrin made the decision to land it manually knowing that if they used too much fuel they would be unable to return to the command module and would die on the moon. Thankfully, they were able to do it and everything went fine after that. But I did read that it was barely....
 
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12043206

The Kalman Filter was used the in the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer [0] (discussed in the past on HN [1]).As someone linked previously, here is a historical perspective [2], and a link to the actual state vector update computations [3].The AGC maintained the state vectors for t...

Yeah, everything used in the Apollo Computer was cutting-edge design. Not just the transistors, but also the algorithms.

In addition to the new math to put us into orbit, you also need an algorithm to filter potentially bad sensor updates.

After Apollo, the filter ended up used in a lot of applications. Who knew that finding the good data (truth estimate) in a sea of ambiguities had such wide use? :D

https://www.eng.ufl.edu/newengineer/in-memoriam/remembering-rudolf-e-kalman-1930-2016/
 
Last edited:
Yep, they are all using 8" floppy diskette drives - those were considered old and legacy in the early 1980s, and were phased out completely in the world by the late 1980s.
They also utilize 24v lines instead of 12v lines due to the large motors required to spin up the diskette.

When I worked at Ft. Huachuca in the early 90’s, we actually still had some Sperry Univac hardware in the software development lab that used 8” floppies. Of course, we also had the archaic removable hard drive cabinets and platters as well and 9 track tapes to content with too, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that 8” FDDs were still a thing there. Looked like the old NASA data control centers from the 70’s. Left in ‘94 and never looked back.
 
When I worked at Ft. Huachuca in the early 90’s, we actually still had some Sperry Univac hardware in the software development lab that used 8” floppies. Of course, we also had the archaic removable hard drive cabinets and platters as well and 9 track tapes to content with too, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that 8” FDDs were still a thing there. Looked like the old NASA data control centers from the 70’s. Left in ‘94 and never looked back.
I'm really impressed much of that equipment was still in use into the mid-1990s.
Did you have a chance to work first-hand with any of that equipment at all?

I believe you can even get those top-loader HDD platters from here: http://www.athana.com/rigid/rd.html

CT%20Pack1.jpg



Also, just for kicks - email in 1984:

(How many people under the age of 35 even know what a rotary phone is, let alone how to use one - I do! :D )
 
I'm really impressed much of that equipment was still in use into the mid-1990s.
Did you have a chance to work first-hand with any of that equipment at all?

I was there primarily for the Bytex autoswitch installation, implementation and support, but received a bit of cross training on the 9000 series AMME hardware they had in the lab. Looks like most that of that stuff was installed starting in 1974 in several military comm centers, and the SDL at Huachuca was probably one of the last remaining installations. I’m sure that what I was doing there with the Bytex was probably related to the eventual replacement of some of that old hardware.

I found this article about the Univac Hardware on this site...looks even older than some of the stuff we used. Forgot about the card reader even... :)
http://www.onegentleman.biz/Univac History/e and the Univac Computer.html

Dang, I didn’t think it would be so hard to find reference material for the Bytex hardware! Wish I had some pictures from back in the day, but you know how it goes with military comm sites and security. This thread is definitely taking me back in time as well...
 
Last edited:
Since we're on the topic, you all might appreciate a few of these systems as well from our past! (y)









I can't recommend LGR's channel enough.


Double post. We have a modern feature called "edit" for such situations.
 
This story appeared recently in Fast Company as part of a series they are running on the moon landing. Sometimes it's good to revisit technology milestones to appreciate just what we have today.

wish it had more technical details in it
 
Actually take the time to read my post and your question will be answered.
I didn't have a question, I know what you are saying, and your post was a complete waste of everyone's time here since you contributed absolutely nothing to this thread.
You aren't a mod, so next time, please keep your shit posts to yourself.
 
I didn't have a question, I know what you are saying, and your post was a complete waste of everyone's time here since you contributed absolutely nothing to this thread.
You aren't a mod, so next time, please keep your shit posts to yourself.

If you know what I'm saying, and I know what your saying, then what's the problem? This is a discussion board and we are discussing things. Grow up a little and quit whining constantly.
 
I always enjoy reading about old tech like this, it helps illustrate how far tech has come when you read about all of the limitations they had to overcome back then.

It's interesting to read that they allowed the programmers so much trust and freedom to do what needed to be done given how careful they are these days for fear of introducing hardware or software bugs. I guess since there was no older stuff to fall back on they just had to hope no errors made it through.

Grow up a little and quit whining constantly.

Lol, do you not see the irony in this statement?

I enjoyed the posts they had made, yours not so much...
 
I always enjoy reading about old tech like this, it helps illustrate how far tech has come when you read about all of the limitations they had to overcome back then.

It's interesting to read that they allowed the programmers so much trust and freedom to do what needed to be done given how careful they are these days for fear of introducing hardware or software bugs. I guess since there was no older stuff to fall back on they just had to hope no errors made it through.

They had system design by more than just a single person, test setups to evaluate the completed systems, and code reviews, just like we do today. See here:

http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/one-giant-leap-the-apollo-guidance-compu/184404139

The reason you think it was just one engineer is because that's all they write the stories about. It was an effort that took hundreds of people to accomplish, even if the brains running the thing were fewer in number.

Computers had already been sold by IBM and other big makers for fifteen years, so process was already well-defined, even if you saw a lot of rockstars that stood-out at the top.
 
Last edited:
They had system design by more than just a single person, test setups to evaluate the completed systems, and code reviews, just like we do today. See here:

http://www.drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/one-giant-leap-the-apollo-guidance-compu/184404139

The reason you think it was just one engineer is because that's all they write the stories about. It was an effort that took hundreds of people to accomplish, even if the brains running the thing were fewer in number.

Computers had already been sold by IBM for fifteen years Software Process had been pretty much defined in-stone, even if it was mostly led by a few rockstars.

I wasn't trying to say I thought it was one engineer and I'm sure they still had a strict review process but I was referring to this quote above: "Because software was a mystery, a black box, upper management gave us total freedom and trust." These days NASA has a lot of bureaucratic hurdles for any new hardware and software, trust is not in their vocabulary.
 
I wasn't trying to say I thought it was one engineer and I'm sure they still had a strict review process but I was referring to this quote above: "Because software was a mystery, a black box, upper management gave us total freedom and trust." These days NASA has a lot of bureaucratic hurdles for any new hardware and software, trust is not in their vocabulary.

The reason they had to have total trust is because the algorithms were all new. You can't be choosy when there's only one algorithm that does the job, coded by this one person. Time and storage space are at a premium, so you're limited on your approaches.

Once you leap over as many hurdles as Nasa has (50 years of them) and build up a long list of algorithms you have enough experience to fear change, and think you know everything.

But that's not to say that, just because they depended on rockstars that there was no reviews; you had to prove your algorithm worked. They're just saying that "compared to NASA of today, they were completely on our side."
 
Last edited:
The reason they had to have total trust is because the algorithms were all new. You can't be choosy when there's only one algorithm that does the job, coded by this one person.

Once you leap over as many hurdles as Nasa has (50 years of them), you have enough experience to fear change, and think you know everything.

But that's not to say that, just because they depended on rockstars that there was no reviews. They're just saying that "compared to NASA of today, they were total on our side."

It's logical it's just so different from the way they've operated for a long time. I'm used to hearing about all the technical limitations they have to deal with due to their (justifiable) reluctance to adopt new tech that might have bugs.
 
Margaret Hamilton
Again, credit where credit is due!
Her Apollo 11 code is also publicly available on GitHub:


]

Yeah, I found description of programming and problem solving for the Apollo program very compelling. No doubt, genius level intellect. This is what probably drew her to programming in the first place.
All good until she got political in what she said. "Women are not allowed to drive in some countries. And women are not allowed to be priests" Yeah I'm sure "The Man" kept her down and kept her from her dream working for NASA and programming the Apollo computer. :rolleyes:

When I was young I use to think as a rule women really were not as smart as men when it comes to technical things. I tried to learn assembler for my Atari 400 computer; because Basic was way, way too slow for a lot of things. Assembler kicked my ass. Couldn't handle it. I later read an article about programming of arcade machine games; all done in assembler and much by women. Whhaa??
Facts are for women that find programming appealing their brain is more suited for "multitasking" and seeing interconnected big picture things. Men's thinking tend to be compartmentalized. It is like the analogy we often hear "Men are like waffles, women are like spaghetti." Men compartmentalize things and they are separate Cause and Effect situations. Thus a solution is narrow and plain to see to each. Women see everything as interconnected so a solution isn't always a solution since there are positives and negatives in different areas. When you are married you see this exact thing play out much of the time. You are presented with a problem and you know the solution instantly. But the wife will bring up possible repercussions of such a solution you didn't even consider and probably wouldn't have.
 
I wasn't trying to say I thought it was one engineer and I'm sure they still had a strict review process but I was referring to this quote above: "Because software was a mystery, a black box, upper management gave us total freedom and trust." These days NASA has a lot of bureaucratic hurdles for any new hardware and software, trust is not in their vocabulary.

The joy of working in a results-based system, which can be hard to find nowadays.
 
When I worked at Ft. Huachuca in the early 90’s, we actually still had some Sperry Univac hardware in the software development lab that used 8” floppies. Of course, we also had the archaic removable hard drive cabinets and platters as well and 9 track tapes to content with too, so I guess it shouldn’t be surprising that 8” FDDs were still a thing there. Looked like the old NASA data control centers from the 70’s. Left in ‘94 and never looked back.

I was in the Army in the 80's and 90's, I can still remember our parts clerks lugging those huge TRS-80's out to the field, in the late 1980's, the best in semi-portable computing! those things were robust, all we had for power were small 60Hz utility generators, Voltage and Frequency would wander all over the place, with no power conditioners at all.
 
I had a high school teacher in like 1990 that went on and on about how his Casio digital calculator watch had more horsepower and memory than the stuff they used for the Apollo missions. Actually kinda scary if you stop to think about it... so don't.

edit - also don't think too hard about the computers that control our nuclear missile arsenal... all ancient and some using floppy disks. But hey at least they can't be hacked, we hope.
Kind of says something about the level of computing power that is actually needed for space missions, which really is not much. Hell most of the stuff in space is clunky old mostly because it's clunky durable they want it to keep working for years and years.

And to go with a comparison, something like an Nvidia 8800 has more processing power than THE top super computers in the mid90s, however your phone still doesn't get anywhere close (regardless of how fancy it seems). Don't worry thought the fastest super computers in the early part of 2000s still are more powerful than even a 2080 TI :D Super computers simply made crazy strides from year to year, like some scary alien AI shit going to work.
 
This is pretty cool and talks about Core Rope Memory that was used in the Apollo AGC:

 
Back
Top