4 ms·

Speaking from experience with software engineering which might not apply everywhere, but complexity is one of those things that’s often easy to point out and ve

by lovecg 3y ago

Speaking from experience with software engineering which might not apply everywhere, but complexity is one of those things that’s often easy to point out and very difficult to get rid of. It’s often a form of organizational disease where a ton of people’s jobs are tied to maintaining or introducing new complexity - once it becomes entrenched, watch out. Requires good (and rare) leadership to pull out of this. > Examples are ablative thrust chambers that do not require regenerative cooling Now imagine that there’s already a team with a vested interest to make regenerative cooling work no matter what. The real puzzle is how do you get them to stop working on it altogether gracefully without hurting too many egos or careers. I have a feeling that Apollo had a different culture in the early days that was focused on the mission, and these problems didn’t show up. This is often true of early stage startups as well.

Animats 3y ago
Man. Moon. Decade. That was the goal. It was achieved. It was a dead end. Cost per launch was so high that nobody ever went to the moon again. All that technology was special purpose and single use, not useful for much other than moon missions. Apollo didn't lead anywhere.
- TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
  > All that technology was special purpose and single use, not useful for much other than moon missions. Apollo didn't lead anywhere. To the contrary, the lineage that underpins modern computing traces directly back to Apollo and the work that supported the program. Apollo was a force multiplier in going from “adding machines running on buildings full of vacuum tubes” to solid state technologies and running higher level software that could control hardware. Similarly, what we learned about building human-rated spacecraft directly led to the follow-on programs, some of which would become ISS. Many of these advancements would be synthesized into modern defense, weather forecasting, and other technologies. The need for NASA to interconnect facilities far afield from one another was a huge force for advancing what telephony and telematics could do. Apollo wasn’t meant to go beyond the moon, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t go anywhere. Apollo accomplished what it set out to do and became a scientific foundation for the next several decades.
  - Animats 3y ago
    > To the contrary, the lineage that underpins modern computing traces directly back to Apollo and the work that supported the program. No, that was mostly the USAF, not NASA. At one point, the USAF was the largest buyer of transistors. There were transistorized computers as early as 1953. The USAF had a transistorized computer in a plane by 1955. DEC was founded in 1957. The Minuteman missile (1962) had a digital computer onboard. And no, NASA did not develop Velcro, Teflon, or Tang, either.
    - TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
      I didn’t claim that NASA invented transistor based computers, nor did I claim they developed Velcro, Teflon, or Tang. In the strictest sense, academia and industry developed all of those technologies on a practical level for some amalgamation of NACA, USAF, and NASA programs. What NASA accomplished with Apollo was something that the USAF wasn’t positioned to do, which was to transform nascent technologies into platforms that went on to be commercially viable. Apollo straddled a line between what existed, what was possible, and what could be applied without compromising national security during the Cold War. Truly digital computing has its roots in Apollo as a result of the need for telematics and communications that could span half the planet and to the Moon. There is some fantastic reading on the topic that may interest you. Digital Apollo is a wonderful history, and the NASA NTRS and NASA History repositories online have an endless supply from the banal to the executive. Recently I enjoyed the coffee table book Core Memory, edited by Mark Richards. It’s a fantastic visual survey and light history of specific computers from the past and includes some of the USAF/SAC hardware, including an ARPANET Interface Message Processor, as well as the Apollo GNC. Great to flip through if you also enjoy viewing these legendary pieces of hardware. Edit: I misread your comment initially; I see you didn’t claim that I said NASA invented transistor based computers. I submit that it’s a nuanced point, although I’ve also been long fascinated by that earlier work by (e.g.) Bell Labs, Draper, MIT MVL, and so on.

by lovecg 3y ago

Animats 3y ago

Man. Moon. Decade. That was the goal. It was achieved. It was a dead end. Cost per launch was so high that nobody ever went to the moon again. All that technology was special purpose and single use, not useful for much other than moon missions. Apollo didn't lead anywhere.

TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
> All that technology was special purpose and single use, not useful for much other than moon missions. Apollo didn't lead anywhere. To the contrary, the lineage that underpins modern computing traces directly back to Apollo and the work that supported the program. Apollo was a force multiplier in going from “adding machines running on buildings full of vacuum tubes” to solid state technologies and running higher level software that could control hardware. Similarly, what we learned about building human-rated spacecraft directly led to the follow-on programs, some of which would become ISS. Many of these advancements would be synthesized into modern defense, weather forecasting, and other technologies. The need for NASA to interconnect facilities far afield from one another was a huge force for advancing what telephony and telematics could do. Apollo wasn’t meant to go beyond the moon, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t go anywhere. Apollo accomplished what it set out to do and became a scientific foundation for the next several decades.
- Animats 3y ago
  > To the contrary, the lineage that underpins modern computing traces directly back to Apollo and the work that supported the program. No, that was mostly the USAF, not NASA. At one point, the USAF was the largest buyer of transistors. There were transistorized computers as early as 1953. The USAF had a transistorized computer in a plane by 1955. DEC was founded in 1957. The Minuteman missile (1962) had a digital computer onboard. And no, NASA did not develop Velcro, Teflon, or Tang, either.
  - TheNewsIsHere 3y ago
    I didn’t claim that NASA invented transistor based computers, nor did I claim they developed Velcro, Teflon, or Tang. In the strictest sense, academia and industry developed all of those technologies on a practical level for some amalgamation of NACA, USAF, and NASA programs. What NASA accomplished with Apollo was something that the USAF wasn’t positioned to do, which was to transform nascent technologies into platforms that went on to be commercially viable. Apollo straddled a line between what existed, what was possible, and what could be applied without compromising national security during the Cold War. Truly digital computing has its roots in Apollo as a result of the need for telematics and communications that could span half the planet and to the Moon. There is some fantastic reading on the topic that may interest you. Digital Apollo is a wonderful history, and the NASA NTRS and NASA History repositories online have an endless supply from the banal to the executive. Recently I enjoyed the coffee table book Core Memory, edited by Mark Richards. It’s a fantastic visual survey and light history of specific computers from the past and includes some of the USAF/SAC hardware, including an ARPANET Interface Message Processor, as well as the Apollo GNC. Great to flip through if you also enjoy viewing these legendary pieces of hardware. Edit: I misread your comment initially; I see you didn’t claim that I said NASA invented transistor based computers. I submit that it’s a nuanced point, although I’ve also been long fascinated by that earlier work by (e.g.) Bell Labs, Draper, MIT MVL, and so on.