Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #83331 > unrolled thread
| Started by | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-03-18 05:55 -0400 |
| Last post | 2026-03-26 07:01 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 23 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
"Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-18 05:55 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> - 2026-03-19 15:52 +0800
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-19 04:43 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-03-19 15:14 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-19 08:49 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-19 23:46 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> - 2026-03-20 14:11 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-20 23:23 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-21 20:26 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-22 00:27 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-22 11:26 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-22 08:46 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-22 21:10 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-23 03:35 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-23 11:34 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-23 07:18 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2026-03-26 02:36 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-26 03:34 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-26 03:55 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-26 02:46 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 08:59 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-03-27 13:54 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) - 2026-03-27 18:28 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-27 21:13 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 00:11 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Cryptoengineer <petertrei@gmail.com> - 2026-03-28 21:56 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-29 03:47 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 16:49 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-30 01:18 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-30 11:50 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-30 10:33 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-30 20:30 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-30 21:53 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-03-31 08:58 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-31 17:23 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> - 2026-03-31 10:58 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-31 19:21 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) - 2026-04-01 15:06 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-01 21:21 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-31 15:53 -0500
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-04-01 06:47 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Titus G <noone@nowhere.com> - 2026-04-02 15:53 +1300
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-04-02 08:04 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-03-31 21:28 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-04-01 06:51 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-01 20:50 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-04-01 23:12 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-04-02 05:57 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-04-03 08:58 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-04-03 23:56 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-27 21:17 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-28 03:07 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-28 00:07 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2026-03-28 00:13 -0500
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-28 06:47 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 11:44 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 11:40 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-28 06:45 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-03-28 15:04 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-29 12:12 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-28 11:33 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-29 11:57 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> - 2026-03-29 09:29 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-29 16:11 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching William Hyde <wthyde1953@gmail.com> - 2026-03-29 17:02 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-03-26 08:41 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Nuno Silva <nunojsilva@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-27 09:41 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> - 2026-03-27 08:41 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2026-03-26 03:46 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-26 02:27 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> - 2026-03-26 08:40 -0700
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-26 21:42 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2026-03-27 18:24 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2026-03-27 18:27 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2026-03-28 14:27 +0100
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> - 2026-03-26 01:37 -0400
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-26 18:33 +0000
Re: "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching rbowman <bowman@montana.com> - 2026-03-26 07:01 +0000
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-18 05:55 -0400 |
| Subject | "Destination Moon" (1949) - Worth Watching |
| Message-ID | <3uGdnZtryc8c6yf0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sxUMOiP2M They actually did a pretty good job of this for the time. The math/engineering and the expected challenges. Sorry, no 'moon monsters' :-( Looks like they fly a 250' V2 with a thermal-atomic engine.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Woozy Song <suzyw0ng@outlook.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-19 15:52 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <10pga07$hguh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83331 |
c186282 wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sxUMOiP2M > > They actually did a pretty good job of this > for the time. The math/engineering and the > expected challenges. > > Sorry, no 'moon monsters' :-( > had to wait for Wallace and Grommit to get them
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-19 04:43 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <M16dnb-rnNO-Kib0nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83436 |
On 3/19/26 03:52, Woozy Song wrote: > c186282 wrote: >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sxUMOiP2M >> >> They actually did a pretty good job of this >> for the time. The math/engineering and the >> expected challenges. >> >> Sorry, no 'moon monsters' :-( >> > > had to wait for Wallace and Grommit to get them Heh ! DM was pretty straight-up, and, for the time, surprisingly tech-accurate. We WERE able to get to the moon even in '49. Just a few, mostly political/fiscal barriers. Note that the thermal-atomic engines WERE made and tested. Alas the RADIATION aspects were horrific. No Good - at least if launching from Earth. Now as a SECOND stage, beyond earth's atmosphere, these things are STILL viable. I note that in the movie the fuel/mass equation was well represented. This is and has been a biggie in any space flight. Oh well, maybe SOMEDAY we'll have "warp drive" or similar ... but not anytime soon. Meanwhile it's still Newton's Curse. Not gonna get live humans beyond, maybe even to, Saturn. Now 'AI' quasi-humans, yea. Hey, will they be based on Linux ??? :-) Oh, prediction, no 'warp drive'. Instead some realization that in the quantum view anything can be anywhere ... just have to get a large object to cohere to the same quantum equation and then figure out how to POINT it. Blip -> Blop. Sorry, no noisy flaming rockets with big fins ....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-19 15:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n22ek0F7akhU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83331 |
On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 05:55:10 -0400, c186282 wrote: > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sxUMOiP2M > > They actually did a pretty good job of this > for the time. The math/engineering and the > expected challenges. > > Sorry, no 'moon monsters' :-( > > Looks like they fly a 250' V2 with a > thermal-atomic engine. Running on Linux? -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bobbie Sellers <bliss-sf4ever@dslextreme.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-19 08:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10ph5un$r73r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #83475 |
On 3/19/26 07:14, s|b wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 05:55:10 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sxUMOiP2M >> >> They actually did a pretty good job of this >> for the time. The math/engineering and the >> expected challenges. >> >> Sorry, no 'moon monsters' :-( >> >> Looks like they fly a 250' V2 with a >> thermal-atomic engine. > > Running on Linux? > They did it with slide rules in 1949 and the mighty human brain's capacity for interpolation. I was still learning to use slide rules in the 1950s and in Nuclear Power School in 1960s when the I learned about binary reading lights on instrument reporting on the strength of radioactive contamination from samples taken from various places. Many old fashioned instrument shops had to be completely removed due to radium contamination from repainting dials for submarines. Destination Moon may have been a good movie but the book was great. bliss
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-19 23:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Ndmcncry5Z2LXiH0nZ2dnZfqn_WdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83475 |
On 3/19/26 10:14, s|b wrote: > On Wed, 18 Mar 2026 05:55:10 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8sxUMOiP2M >> >> They actually did a pretty good job of this >> for the time. The math/engineering and the >> expected challenges. >> >> Sorry, no 'moon monsters' :-( >> >> Looks like they fly a 250' V2 with a >> thermal-atomic engine. > > Running on Linux? Ah, just one rPi could have replaced tons of hardware on their moon rocket !
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "s|b" <me@privacy.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-20 14:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n24va6Fjg71U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83535 |
On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: > > Running on Linux? > Ah, just one rPi could have replaced > tons of hardware on their moon rocket ! I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either. -- s|b
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-20 23:23 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <U2ydnQ5rb57dkiP0nZ2dnZfqnPqdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83584 |
On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote: > On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: > >>> Running on Linux? > >> Ah, just one rPi could have replaced >> tons of hardware on their moon rocket ! > > I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either. PIs have that nice big row of pins for running devices, phones don't - so I'll stick with my suggestion :-) Of course either is a 'super-computer' in an Apollo program context ..... The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never believed such things could ever exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-21 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b0839mx25s.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83612 |
On 2026-03-21 04:23, c186282 wrote: > On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> >>>> Running on Linux? >>> Ah, just one rPi could have replaced >>> tons of hardware on their moon rocket ! >> >> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either. > > PIs have that nice big row of pins for > running devices, phones don't - so I'll > stick with my suggestion :-) I would guess the computers used in the Apollo thing had lots of inputs from other on board instruments and sensors, and possibly outputs. > > Of course either is a 'super-computer' in > an Apollo program context ..... > > The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never > believed such things could ever exist. > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-22 00:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <QuednS_dxNRO8iL0nZ2dnZfqn_udnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83649 |
On 3/21/26 15:26, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 2026-03-21 04:23, c186282 wrote: >> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote: >>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>> >>>>> Running on Linux? >>>> Ah, just one rPi could have replaced >>>> tons of hardware on their moon rocket ! >>> >>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either. >> >> PIs have that nice big row of pins for >> running devices, phones don't - so I'll >> stick with my suggestion :-) > > I would guess the computers used in the Apollo thing had lots of inputs > from other on board instruments and sensors, and possibly outputs. Check it out. They were HORRIBLE computers. The lander 'computer' used something called "rope memory" ... vaguely similar to mag core, but the cores were hand-wired into strings by little old ladies. Better tech WAS to be had by '69 ... but the Apollo craft were govt specced long before that and rather old tech fixes were used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory In the late 80s, a Navy buddy took me on a tour of his attack sub. The sonar room had the highest computer tech ... some huge box (DEC I think) with some of those old hard drives where you could literally remove the platters. In short it was late 60s/early 70s tech on an 80s machine. But, as said, the subs were specced-out long before ... a decade+ behind the curve before the first one left the dock. The sonar guy was top-tier, could only say SO much, but he'd become super-expert at leveraging that 'ancient' tech. Amazing what CAN be done with 'old stuff' if you're motivated. >> Of course either is a 'super-computer' in >> an Apollo program context ..... >> >> The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never >> believed such things could ever exist. '49 ... 'computers' were gigantic assemblies of vac tubes and relays. Not so many had even heard of the things or had any grasp of what could be done with them. 'Programming' was oft done by literally moving plug-wires around. Clocks were in the kilohertz range. Memory was measured in bytes. 'RAM' ... think things like mercury-delay lines, 'hard drives' were DRUMS. But, they DID get better. Something like a Pi-5 ... it would have been just unbelievable in '49 - SciFi of centuries beyond. Hmm ... ever see a 70s movie called "The Forbin Project" ? Their ultra-computer (apparently that included some grown brain-tissue) filled up an entire mountain fortress. Believable at the time. Would have been masses of discrete transistors back then. (DID see a mainframe built from those, still in use, back around '80 - 6x6x6 foot box, county govt, serial terminals, tty machines, COBOL) Note things did NOT go well with Forbin's 'AI' ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Joe Makowiec <makowiec@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-22 11:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsB4174BAC68250makowiecatnycapdotrE@157.180.91.226> |
| In reply to | #83682 |
On 22 Mar 2026 in comp.os.linux.misc, c186282 wrote: > But, as said, the subs were specced-out long > before ... a decade+ behind the curve before > the first one left the dock. I did a couple of years in military procurement in the early 1980s with Sperry before it became Un1sys. We had MILSPEC on microform - I forget whether it was film or fiche - after which we could order our milspec chips, most of which were miserably difficult to buy because they were a decade out of date. -- Joe Makowiec https://makowiec.org/ Email: https://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe Usenet Improvement Project: https://web.archive.org/web/20070914150106/http://improve-usenet.org/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-22 08:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <geydnbohLeYKeSL0nZ2dnZfqn_sAAAAA@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83711 |
On 3/22/26 07:26, Joe Makowiec wrote: > On 22 Mar 2026 in comp.os.linux.misc, c186282 wrote: > >> But, as said, the subs were specced-out long >> before ... a decade+ behind the curve before >> the first one left the dock. > > I did a couple of years in military procurement in the early 1980s with > Sperry before it became Un1sys. We had MILSPEC on microform - I forget > whether it was film or fiche - after which we could order our milspec > chips, most of which were miserably difficult to buy because they were > a decade out of date. Yep, typical. And I do remember film/fische very much. There was a sort of 'Xerox' machine ... you'd put the microfische in, select yer page, and then photo-copy it. Bad copy, but you could usually, barely, read it. Anyway, govt procurement TAKES A LONG TIME. When it comes to tech then EXPECT the specified items to be LONG out of date by the time you ever build whatever. Isn't like that in the movies, but IS, very much, in the Real World. BTW ... I think microfilm STILL has a useful archival role. Electronic storage is volatile, but those films can probably last 10,000 years. Ever used 'Tech Pan' - intended as a microfilm ? Incredible resolution on an ester base. Could also be low-contrast processed and was a very impressive, if low speed, photographic film. Alas they only made JUST so much .... Have a photo done with Tech Pan, with a 4x5 camera ... you can put a magnifying glass on it and the resolution just keeps going .... think 'giga-pixel'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-22 21:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <3vu59mxmrn.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83682 |
On 2026-03-22 05:27, c186282 wrote: > On 3/21/26 15:26, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 2026-03-21 04:23, c186282 wrote: >>> On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote: >>>> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Running on Linux? >>>>> Ah, just one rPi could have replaced >>>>> tons of hardware on their moon rocket ! >>>> >>>> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either. >>> >>> PIs have that nice big row of pins for >>> running devices, phones don't - so I'll >>> stick with my suggestion :-) >> >> I would guess the computers used in the Apollo thing had lots of >> inputs from other on board instruments and sensors, and possibly outputs. > > Check it out. They were HORRIBLE computers. > > The lander 'computer' used something called > "rope memory" ... vaguely similar to mag core, > but the cores were hand-wired into strings > by little old ladies. Better tech WAS to be > had by '69 ... but the Apollo craft were > govt specced long before that and rather old > tech fixes were used. Yes. But I'm sure that the landing computer got the altitude reading directly from the radar, it did not have to be typed in. Things like that that a general purpose computer doesn't do. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_rope_memory > > In the late 80s, a Navy buddy took me on a tour > of his attack sub. The sonar room had the highest > computer tech ... some huge box (DEC I think) > with some of those old hard drives where you > could literally remove the platters. In short > it was late 60s/early 70s tech on an 80s machine. > > But, as said, the subs were specced-out long > before ... a decade+ behind the curve before > the first one left the dock. The sonar guy > was top-tier, could only say SO much, but > he'd become super-expert at leveraging that > 'ancient' tech. Amazing what CAN be done > with 'old stuff' if you're motivated. Indeed. > >>> Of course either is a 'super-computer' in >>> an Apollo program context ..... >>> >>> The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never >>> believed such things could ever exist. > > '49 ... 'computers' were gigantic assemblies of > vac tubes and relays. Not so many had even > heard of the things or had any grasp of what > could be done with them. 'Programming' was > oft done by literally moving plug-wires around. > Clocks were in the kilohertz range. Memory > was measured in bytes. 'RAM' ... think things > like mercury-delay lines, 'hard drives' were > DRUMS. > > But, they DID get better. > > Something like a Pi-5 ... it would have been > just unbelievable in '49 - SciFi of centuries > beyond. > > Hmm ... ever see a 70s movie called "The Forbin > Project" ? Their ultra-computer (apparently that > included some grown brain-tissue) filled up an > entire mountain fortress. Believable at the time. > Would have been masses of discrete transistors > back then. (DID see a mainframe built from those, > still in use, back around '80 - 6x6x6 foot box, > county govt, serial terminals, tty machines, COBOL) > > Note things did NOT go well with Forbin's 'AI' ... > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rbowman <bowman@montana.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 03:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n2bqncFlm42U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #83724 |
On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:10:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > Yes. But I'm sure that the landing computer got the altitude reading > directly from the radar, it did not have to be typed in. Things like > that that a general purpose computer doesn't do. https://github.com/fortran-gaming/lunar-lander-1969 https://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~storer/LunarLander/LunarLander.html In the original you controlled the thrust at 10 second intervals based on the speed and altitude. Crash into the moon - lose. Run out of fuel - lose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuto-R_Mission_2 "On 5 June 2025, the lander failed to complete its landing, impacting the lunar surface.[19] On 24 June 2025, the company released a technical analysis identifying an anomaly in the Laser Range Finder (LRF) as the cause of the hard landing."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 11:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <uih79mx8on.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #83758 |
On 2026-03-23 04:35, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:10:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Yes. But I'm sure that the landing computer got the altitude reading >> directly from the radar, it did not have to be typed in. Things like >> that that a general purpose computer doesn't do. > > https://github.com/fortran-gaming/lunar-lander-1969 > https://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~storer/LunarLander/LunarLander.html > > In the original you controlled the thrust at 10 second intervals based on > the speed and altitude. Crash into the moon - lose. Run out of fuel - > lose. Sure, I wrote a lander for Texas Instruments Programmable Calculator TI-57 :-) <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TI-57> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuto-R_Mission_2 > > > "On 5 June 2025, the lander failed to complete its landing, impacting the > lunar surface.[19] On 24 June 2025, the company released a technical > analysis identifying an anomaly in the Laser Range Finder (LRF) as the > cause of the hard landing." > > -- Cheers, Carlos. ES🇪🇸, EU🇪🇺;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-23 07:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3JycnVU47bcwvFz0nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #83758 |
On 3/22/26 23:35, rbowman wrote: > On Sun, 22 Mar 2026 21:10:43 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > >> Yes. But I'm sure that the landing computer got the altitude reading >> directly from the radar, it did not have to be typed in. Things like >> that that a general purpose computer doesn't do. > > https://github.com/fortran-gaming/lunar-lander-1969 > https://www.cs.brandeis.edu/~storer/LunarLander/LunarLander.html > > In the original you controlled the thrust at 10 second intervals based on > the speed and altitude. Crash into the moon - lose. Run out of fuel - > lose. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakuto-R_Mission_2 > > > "On 5 June 2025, the lander failed to complete its landing, impacting the > lunar surface.[19] On 24 June 2025, the company released a technical > analysis identifying an anomaly in the Laser Range Finder (LRF) as the > cause of the hard landing." The Japanese seem to have an unusual number of problems dealing with space flight. They have had a few great successes, but at present I would not like to go to the moon on a Japanese rocket or lander.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-26 02:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20260325223255@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #83612 |
On 2026-03-21, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote: > On 3/20/26 09:11, s|b wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Mar 2026 23:46:39 -0400, c186282 wrote: >> I'm guessing a simple smartphone wouldn't do a bad job either. > > The 1949 movie context ... they'd have never > believed such things could ever exist. Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The story is set in the 32nd century.) -- Roger Blake
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-26 03:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <10q29ff$2gva7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #84051 |
On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and > published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless > device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it > to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, > etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The > story is set in the 32nd century.) I would imagine at some point in the next century or so, we will figure out how to turn all these gadgets into built-in extensions to our nervous system. So nobody would need to carry anything about at all. It may look odd to see people staring out into space while using their body-internal devices. Maybe there would also be an autopilot mode to keep their bodies from bumping into other people/things, falling down manholes etc while they’re preoccupied with something else. But how would you present it in a movie/TV made today? I think you’d have to fill the scene with a graphic stylized representation of the participants’ internal world, superimposed on the real, external world.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-26 03:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <a72xR.25585$hD1.10389@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #84053 |
On 2026-03-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: > >> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and >> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless >> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it >> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, >> etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The >> story is set in the 32nd century.) > > I would imagine at some point in the next century or so, we will > figure out how to turn all these gadgets into built-in extensions to > our nervous system. So nobody would need to carry anything about at > all. > > It may look odd to see people staring out into space while using their > body-internal devices. Maybe there would also be an autopilot mode to > keep their bodies from bumping into other people/things, falling down > manholes etc while they’re preoccupied with something else. And, of course, there will be surveillance links to whoever is running the show, complete with a means to kill or at least incapacitate anyone who oversteps the bounds. Several movies and SF stories have touched on this, although I can't remember titles right now. > But how would you present it in a movie/TV made today? I think you’d > have to fill the scene with a graphic stylized representation of the > participants’ internal world, superimposed on the real, external > world. Robocop had a simplified version of that, showing a green screen overlay on his visual input. In fact, when they first booted him up, I seem to recall seeing a reference to COMMAND.COM. "Poor guy," I thought, "no wonder he's having so may problems - he's running MS-DOS!" -- /~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of \ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell. / \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-03-26 02:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eXydnWiYs7rGS1n0nZ2dnZfqn_adnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #84059 |
On 3/25/26 23:55, Charlie Gibbs wrote: > On 2026-03-26, Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote: > >> On Thu, 26 Mar 2026 02:36:09 -0000 (UTC), Roger Blake wrote: >> >>> Arthur Clarke's novella "The Lion of Comarre", written in 1946 and >>> published in 1949, described a character using pocket-size wireless >>> device which was essentially a modern smartphone. One could use it >>> to call anyone else on the planet, bring up maps for navigation, >>> etc. (Of course in 1949 the idea was completely outlandish. The >>> story is set in the 32nd century.) >> >> I would imagine at some point in the next century or so, we will >> figure out how to turn all these gadgets into built-in extensions to >> our nervous system. So nobody would need to carry anything about at >> all. >> >> It may look odd to see people staring out into space while using their >> body-internal devices. Maybe there would also be an autopilot mode to >> keep their bodies from bumping into other people/things, falling down >> manholes etc while they’re preoccupied with something else. > > And, of course, there will be surveillance links to whoever is running > the show, complete with a means to kill or at least incapacitate anyone > who oversteps the bounds. Several movies and SF stories have touched > on this, although I can't remember titles right now. Ah ! You've GOT it !!! :-) Just wait for 'news' via NeuroLink ... It's all the Strawberry Fields ....... >> But how would you present it in a movie/TV made today? I think you’d >> have to fill the scene with a graphic stylized representation of the >> participants’ internal world, superimposed on the real, external >> world. > > Robocop had a simplified version of that, showing a green screen overlay > on his visual input. In fact, when they first booted him up, I seem > to recall seeing a reference to COMMAND.COM. "Poor guy," I thought, > "no wonder he's having so may problems - he's running MS-DOS!" >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web