Slashdot Mirror

Nasa should set standards for the work they want completed, and have it done in a safe manner

Nasa should set standards for the work they want completed, and have it done in a safe manner

Nasa should set standards for the work they want completed, and have it done in a safe manner

"There is some interest in maybe trying to pass something, either as a stand-alone bill or some other vehicle, during the lame-duck session," Sponberg said during an industry day in Washington Nov. 15. "Even if that doesn't happen, I would anticipate that when the new Congress comes in early next year, we [will] probably move out pretty quickly to try to get that authorization for those larger prizes."

Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation and the PDF slides.

"There is some interest in maybe trying to pass something, either as a stand-alone bill or some other vehicle, during the lame-duck session," Sponberg said during an industry day in Washington Nov. 15. "Even if that doesn't happen, I would anticipate that when the new Congress comes in early next year, we [will] probably move out pretty quickly to try to get that authorization for those larger prizes."

Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation and the PDF slides.

Hm...the volume of the sun is something like 1,000,000 earths and the sun is composed of about 27% helium by mass, so it seems to me that there's about 270,000 Earth-fulls of helium waiting to be picked up.

Now:
1. Drive Earth over to the sun
2. Collect helium
3. PROFIT!!!!

Oh...wait...there's the little matter of the temperature being millions of degrees... :-(

I've made this point before, but it bears pointing out again: Blaming human activity for global climate change is as absurd as blaming a butterfly in Bangladesh for a tornado in Texas. It is utter arrogance to believe (and fear mongering to posit) that human activity could have more than a negligable impact of global climate.

Now, that being said, I'm going to give everyone some pretty pictures. First, is a picture of solar activity. Notice the peaks corresponding to March of 2000 and March of 2002. Now look at this picture which shows anomalous activity. Notice the stabilization of the global climate which corresponds to the peaking of the sunspot cycle. The greatest number of anomalies are to be found during periods which have greater rates of change in solar activity. Remember that industrial output is more or less a constant rate.

The fact is, global climate change is being effected by solar activity. Our polluting of our own environment no more affects global warming than shitting your pants makes your house hotter in the summer.

I don't know about you, but the plant on which I live has an orbit that is 147.5 million km (~91.6 million miles) away from the sun at perihelion and 152.5 million km (94.7 million miles) away from the sun at aphelion, with an eccentricity of 0.017.

Although the clock is set to read in 5 or 10 minute intervals, depending on the time of year it could still be up to 16 minutes fast or slow compared to your watch or clock because of the Equation of time. Our sense of time is so conditioned by our dependence on the mechanical/digital that solar time is now percieved to be "wrong".

The US Space Shuttle has significant capabilities - like returning heavy payloads back from orbit - that even *we* don't use. The primary return-mission for the Shuttle is to return the Leonardo module from the ISS. Leonardo, if you don't know, is a glorified trash can. Hell, if you compare the Saturn V launch capability to the Shuttle, the US space program took a giant step backwards because of the Shuttle (and associated politics.)

The Shuttle is the equivalent of a pickup truck that's been tasked with replacing tractor-trailers, Greyhound busses, garbage trucks, and NASCAR race cars. Sure, it's capable of performing all those funcitons, just don't expect it to perform any of them well.

Consider what space exploration would be like today if the Saturn V (or VI or VII) were in service today, in concert with a crew-only vehicle to transport the sentient meat. Use the Saturn booster to take the large, heavy ISS sections into (a useful) orbit, and haul the people up and down on a vehicle designed just for that. And while we're at it, just how do any future missions plan to escape earth orbit (to go places like, say, the Moon?) The Shuttle is incapable of getting out of LEO, so you ain't gonna use that. The Saturn series were the only ones that could get useful[*] payloads into a lunar insertion orbit. The Delta IV Heavy might be able to do it, but it'll be a smaller payload than a Saturn, and it'll be sans meat.

[*] I use the term "useful" here because it's obvious we can get 1000kg to Mars or to the Moon or to interesting comets. But in terms of establishing a manned presence on another planet/moon, we need to send lots more than that ... and not in 1000kg chunks.

Oops. You are entirely correct.

I found a nice article about the different versions of the thermal protection system.

Decades ago???? OOOOoooh, you mean like back in 1981, right? Let's buy some perspective here-- The goal was to create an affordable, reusable space vehical. Decades ago, this thing did qualify. Heck, for the russians it still sounds like it doesn't qualify.

Sure, now it might be time for a change, but I'd say the current shuttle has served it's intended purpose pretty damn well.

As in this Buran? Means 'snow storm' in Russian. "Ptichka" ("Little Bird" in Russian) was the name of the 2nd one built, which never flew. Energia did make the booster.

"Kliper", eh? I'm sure any resemblance to the McDonnell-Douglas Delta Clipper is purely coincidental.

It's like deja-vu all over again!

Factors that affect drag.

Factors that affect drag.

It bothers me a lot that stereo photography has been around so long yet isn't ubiquitous yet. Modern digi-cams don't do this. You said it's been around for ages, I hope most people know you mean more than decades. A quick google search tells me 1839 at the latest. What is stopping it?

Putting 2 sensors on a digi cam (photo or video) is not a difficult trick. You store the images in a format that supports 2 channels (left/right) and you can view them on any monitor with a simple pair of USB controlled glasses that flicks back and forth blacking out each eye. Also there are already 3d monitors out there that work without glasses.

Print out one channel for a 2d image or use photoshop filters to create red/blue 3d prints. Or even send images to a printer and get back those wheels used in those orange stereoscope toys.

If I had this ALL my pictures would be 3d. For that matter all movies should be 3D. IMAX has a workable solution but I think every movie should be shown this way. People would even buy their own personal polarized glasses that are more comfortable than the pairs handed out at the show.

I've been eyeing a digital-SLR for quite some time, for the cost of one of those I'd gladly turn my attention to a 3D capable camera with lower quality. And if the grandparent post is right something similar should be possible for SLR cameras without using 2 huge lenses. Although I'd submit that you can't always control the lighting.

Every now and then a red/blue 3D image comes up on APOD or elsewhere and I kick myself for not having a cheap pair red/blue glasses.

I did a quick "back of the envelope" worst-case calculation based on conservation of momentum with the assumption that the density of Tempel 1 is the same as earth's (probably an erroneous assumption, but I have to assume something for its density) and that it's radius is 3 Km. Furthermore I assumed that Temple1 was stationary instead of worrying about vectors and orbital trajectories, and that the entire force of the impact is transferred to Tempel 1 (rather than being a glancing blow, or for the "bullet" to completely pierce the comet and exit from the other side). I also used 23,000 mph (37,015 km/hour) as the impact velocity, although I seem to recall reading somewhere that the actual relative impact velocity is more like 10,000 mph.

Under these very simple conditions I found that the Deep Impact "bullet" would impart an incredibly speedy velocity of 0.5304 millimeter/day to Tempel 1! ;-) At that rate, it would require roughly 438 billion years to change Tempel's orbit by 0.568 AU (the closest the comet has ever approached the earth in the past), so I guess I don't have to worry about it happening in my lifetime! ;-) In fact, IIRC, in a couple of billion years Sol is supposed to become a red giant and engulf the entire solar system.

What is more worrisome to me is what happens in it's next few encounters with Jupiter. According to the JPL Deep Impact web page, Tempel 1 is in a relatively stable but complex orbit which is in "1:2 resonance with Jupiter" (which I assume means that it rendezvous with Jupiter every two Jovian years). I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "gravity assist." In two years the copper "bullet" would have displaced Tempel's orbit by roughly 39 cm (15 inches), and 78 cm the next visit, etc. Gravity assist can greatly accelerate or decelerate a spacecraft (or comet) depending upon the geometry of the encounter while also changing it's trajectory. If Tempel makes very close passes to Jupiter, might it be possible that this small difference in approach trajectory to Jupiter might be amplified by Jupiter's gravity and orbital motion to the point that Temple's trajectory is radically altered? I don't know the answer to that since I'm not an astrophysicist, but I certainly hope that the project scientists do know the answer, because they are gambling not only their own lives on the outcome, but all of humanities lives as well.

I am all for space exploration, and have in fact written software for several space missions (including Cassini), so I know very well that things can and do go wrong - routinely. Because of that I would prefer a less intrusive method of determining Tempel's internal composition.

I did a quick "back of the envelope" worst-case calculation based on conservation of momentum with the assumption that the density of Tempel 1 is the same as earth's (probably an erroneous assumption, but I have to assume something for its density) and that it's radius is 3 Km. Furthermore I assumed that Temple1 was stationary instead of worrying about vectors and orbital trajectories, and that the entire force of the impact is transferred to Tempel 1 (rather than being a glancing blow, or for the "bullet" to completely pierce the comet and exit from the other side). I also used 23,000 mph (37,015 km/hour) as the impact velocity, although I seem to recall reading somewhere that the actual relative impact velocity is more like 10,000 mph.

Under these very simple conditions I found that the Deep Impact "bullet" would impart an incredibly speedy velocity of 0.5304 millimeter/day to Tempel 1! ;-) At that rate, it would require roughly 438 billion years to change Tempel's orbit by 0.568 AU (the closest the comet has ever approached the earth in the past), so I guess I don't have to worry about it happening in my lifetime! ;-) In fact, IIRC, in a couple of billion years Sol is supposed to become a red giant and engulf the entire solar system.

What is more worrisome to me is what happens in it's next few encounters with Jupiter. According to the JPL Deep Impact web page, Tempel 1 is in a relatively stable but complex orbit which is in "1:2 resonance with Jupiter" (which I assume means that it rendezvous with Jupiter every two Jovian years). I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of "gravity assist." In two years the copper "bullet" would have displaced Tempel's orbit by roughly 39 cm (15 inches), and 78 cm the next visit, etc. Gravity assist can greatly accelerate or decelerate a spacecraft (or comet) depending upon the geometry of the encounter while also changing it's trajectory. If Tempel makes very close passes to Jupiter, might it be possible that this small difference in approach trajectory to Jupiter might be amplified by Jupiter's gravity and orbital motion to the point that Temple's trajectory is radically altered? I don't know the answer to that since I'm not an astrophysicist, but I certainly hope that the project scientists do know the answer, because they are gambling not only their own lives on the outcome, but all of humanities lives as well.

I am all for space exploration, and have in fact written software for several space missions (including Cassini), so I know very well that things can and do go wrong - routinely. Because of that I would prefer a less intrusive method of determining Tempel's internal composition.

Except, the US never signed the moon treaty. They did sign the Outer Space Treaty, but that limits the government, not citizens or companies.

http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov/results/ice/moon.htm

This is also mentioned on Wikipedia
There is more detail here:
"Only nine nations have ratified the Moon Treaty (Australia, Austria, Chile, Mexico, Morocco, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Philippines, and Uruguay), while over 90 have signed the Outer Space Treaty. By UN agreement, five signatures are sufficient to validate a treaty as an international instrument, but there is concern at the refusal of the USA and Russia/USSR to sign--the two nations most likely at present to engage significantly in space exploration."

According to NASA, the clear day, directly overhead insolation rate is more like 1000 W/m2. Even the averaged satellite-measured top-of-the-atmosphere rate is only 1368 W/m2. 4KW after our sun goes nova perhaps, but not any time soon.

The problem with putting a telescope (or any other facility, for that matter) at L2, or any of the other Lagrange points, is that their location puts them out of the orbits reachable by the Shuttle for repair purposes. All maintenance would have to be done robotically, and considering the delta-V to return any robotic craft to LEO, it's likely that the service robots would be single-use only.

For those not space-science oriented, the Lagrange points (L1 through L5) are points in space around any two orbiting bodies where their gravity exactly (or nearly so) cancels out; as a result, other objects can be left in stable position at those points. It's even possible to put an object in orbit around a Lagrange point, even though there be no mass there. These are referred to halo orbits. SOHO, the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory is in such an orbit around L1, the postion directly between the Earth and Moon. More information is available online (the last link is a PDF, sorry).

A lot of observing and imaging of comets and their dust comas, and analysis of the resulting images, is being carried out by Jana Pittichova, a postdoctoral fellow (and triathlete!) on Karen's research team, primarily using the University's 88-inch telescope atop Mauna Kea.

Being one of the operators on that telescope, I've worked with Jana on several nights - probably one-third to one-half of the Meech team's total observing this semester.

Although I understand how the observations are carried out from a purely operational and practical standpoint, I haven't seen what the actual analysis looks like... and even if I did, the odds are good that I'd need a lot of explaining, since I'm not a Ph.D. myself!

A lot of observing and imaging of comets and their dust comas, and analysis of the resulting images, is being carried out by Jana Pittichova, a postdoctoral fellow (and triathlete!) on Karen's research team, primarily using the University's 88-inch telescope atop Mauna Kea.

Being one of the operators on that telescope, I've worked with Jana on several nights - probably one-third to one-half of the Meech team's total observing this semester.

Although I understand how the observations are carried out from a purely operational and practical standpoint, I haven't seen what the actual analysis looks like... and even if I did, the odds are good that I'd need a lot of explaining, since I'm not a Ph.D. myself!

A lot of observing and imaging of comets and their dust comas, and analysis of the resulting images, is being carried out by Jana Pittichova, a postdoctoral fellow (and triathlete!) on Karen's research team, primarily using the University's 88-inch telescope atop Mauna Kea.

Being one of the operators on that telescope, I've worked with Jana on several nights - probably one-third to one-half of the Meech team's total observing this semester.

Although I understand how the observations are carried out from a purely operational and practical standpoint, I haven't seen what the actual analysis looks like... and even if I did, the odds are good that I'd need a lot of explaining, since I'm not a Ph.D. myself!

"The impactor is made primarily of copper (49%) as opposed to aluminum (24%) because it minimizes corruption of spectral emission lines that are used to analyze the nucleus."

http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/tech/impactor.html

This project has been around since 2001; probably a dup /. article somewhere... Anyway, here is the NASA website, which gives more details on the mission.

http://deepimpact.jpl.nasa.gov/

I think manned spaceflight is a giant waste of time and money

On this note, you should really look into the research done for it before you say it is a waist. Especially some of the medical research done to help support it. Also, once we get a space elevator up,the cost will come down dramatically.

raise the temperature

We crash several comets into the atmosphere to make it denser. Then start making greenhouse gasses (i.e. Carbon Dioxide) to hold in the heat.

how warm might we expect the equator on Mars to be? Does it have seasons?

How warm do you want it to be is a better question. Mars gets 1/4th as much light as earth. Given that earth radiates/reflects away a lot of heat/light that we get from the sun we can give it earth temperatures. Mars does have an axial tilt so it does have seasons. Read here for more on it's seasons.

Last Friday (Nov. 19) was a big milestone for many small companies like Robter Zubrin's. This is when NASA announced its 2004 SBIR Phase I awards. And yes, this Gashopper is one of them.

Check them all out at: http://sbir.gsfc.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbir2004/phase1/awa rds/2004topic.html There's really some innovative stuff going on. Also, to the future rocket scientists out there: if you want to work in aerospace, this is an excellent site to find small companies doing NASA subcontracting.

On 15 January 2005 it will begin its descent into Titan's atmosphere, an event that might even be visible from Earth, provided you have a decent telescope, and are in the right place at the time.

Is this really possible? Considering this is all Hubble can make out of the whole moon, I find it hard to believe that the atmospheric entry could be bright enough to be seen from this far away. (The Cassini spacecraft itself is far far below the resolution of any Earth-based or orbital telecope)

Would be cool though if Cassini could photograph Huygens' descent, but I expect this will be precluded by the attitute necessary for proper radio communication.

Canada actually _is_ both vast and densely-populated. Take a look at these images

Some links to check out on these topics:

Semantic Designs (makers of a very powerful, generic transformational environment) http://semdesigns.com/

Link to Nic Rouquettes slides from a talk on MDA at the UML 2003 conference) http://ase.arc.nasa.gov/uml03/rouquette.pdf

Link to an article from ACM Computer magazine (last january I think) about MDS, and project at JPL which aims to incorporate some of these ideas into the design of a robust, re-usable flight software platform http://www.computer.org/computer/homepage/0104/Reg an/r1059.pdf

Clicking the Swift Brochure link to a PDF (or the text only link right below it) on the main page cited above takes you to texts which state:

"Swift is built to be agile, to swiftly turn and point its instruments at the burst and relay burst locations within seconds. No satellite turns faster. Swift, in fact, is not an acronym; it is named for the small, nimble bird."

The first page of the PDF is actually an artsy image of the satellite superimposed with a swift.

Prolly not. Most things I've read indicate that even the tamer wavelengths of UV used in black lights can still cause cataracts I would imagine that the UV LEDs would cause problems too (with enough exposure) although there is not yet an LED out there at the right wavelength to do real damage (and be useful for things like steralizing things, or say, keeping water in water cooled PCs from getting slimy... if I'm wrong about this please post a link here as there are many that would like to know) There are many fun links (like here and here) on the fun effects of the different forms of UV. Most deal with tanning beds and sun, but I'm sure if you spend enough time in blacklight, the same applies.

I'm sure in the end most Slashdotter's will opt for more enertaining ways of going blind. >;^)

Seems like you've pointed out an important programming tradeoff: size vs. stability.

Ideally, a high-level language would easier to prove correct, ensuring that critical applications will run properly under all circumstances. This may have been a design choice that resulted in a cost of more overhead based on the existance of processors capable of handling that overhead.

I agree that 2 MB of kernel sounds pretty high for spacecraft though.

Everything is a design choice on these missions with several alternatives and various justifications. It would be interesting to see what was going on here. Slashdotters, check out the NASA technical report server http://ntrs.nasa.gov/ for some downloadable journal articles decribing mission specifications and other research.

Here's what I'd submitted --

"NASA successfully launched its Swift Satellite today at 12:16 PM EST, after weeks of delays due to hurricanes and rocket trouble. The Swift satellite hopes to explore the origin of Gamma ray bursts, long believed to be related to the birth of Black Holes. The Swift project is a joint undertaking between the American, British and Italian space agencies. Kennedy Space Center has a video stream of the launch. "

Having said all of that, I'll agree that formal verification at NASA is in its infancy, and is facing an uphill battle for acceptance (witness how long the Langley group has been trying to push formal methods). It'll be interesting to see what happens with JPL's LaRS.

Having said all of that, I'll agree that formal verification at NASA is in its infancy, and is facing an uphill battle for acceptance (witness how long the Langley group has been trying to push formal methods). It'll be interesting to see what happens with JPL's LaRS.

Perhaps not surprisingly for anyone who has heard about the management at NASA, C++ was selected for the successors to the Remote Agent on the grounds that it is supposed to be more reliable (this despite the fact that the Remote Agent was originally to be developed in C++, an effort that was abandoned after a year of failure). This caused more than a few people to be upset (including a very personal account by one of the aforementioned designers). Clearly the debugging facilities of Common Lisp are far superior to static systems like C++, something which is very useful in diagnosing unexpected error conditions in spacecraft software (read the first question on p. 3 of the interview to see what pains the JPL staff went through to adapt similar, ad-hoc methods to VxWorks). It's also clear from this interview (question: "How is application programming done for a spacecraft?" Answer:"Much the same as for anything elsesoftware requirements are written, with specifications and test plans, then the software is written and tested, problems are fixed, and eventually its sent off to do its job.") that NASA has in no way tried to adapt formal verification methods for it's software, prefering instead to rely on the "tried and true" (at failing, maybe) poke-and-test development "methods."

Clearly, formal verification methods to eliminate bugs before critical software is deployed, and deployment in a system with advanced debugging facilities is a clear win for spacecraft software, and should be adapted as the standard model of development. Unfortunately, like in many other software development enterprises, inertia keeps outdated, inadequate systems going despite a strong failure correlation rate.

Perhaps not surprisingly for anyone who has heard about the management at NASA, C++ was selected for the successors to the Remote Agent on the grounds that it is supposed to be more reliable (this despite the fact that the Remote Agent was originally to be developed in C++, an effort that was abandoned after a year of failure). This caused more than a few people to be upset (including a very personal account by one of the aforementioned designers). Clearly the debugging facilities of Common Lisp are far superior to static systems like C++, something which is very useful in diagnosing unexpected error conditions in spacecraft software (read the first question on p. 3 of the interview to see what pains the JPL staff went through to adapt similar, ad-hoc methods to VxWorks). It's also clear from this interview (question: "How is application programming done for a spacecraft?" Answer:"Much the same as for anything elsesoftware requirements are written, with specifications and test plans, then the software is written and tested, problems are fixed, and eventually its sent off to do its job.") that NASA has in no way tried to adapt formal verification methods for it's software, prefering instead to rely on the "tried and true" (at failing, maybe) poke-and-test development "methods."

Clearly, formal verification methods to eliminate bugs before critical software is deployed, and deployment in a system with advanced debugging facilities is a clear win for spacecraft software, and should be adapted as the standard model of development. Unfortunately, like in many other software development enterprises, inertia keeps outdated, inadequate systems going despite a strong failure correlation rate.

Either 12 or 17 ( the last ) was the finest moment. Apollo 12 landed just a few hundred yards from a previous unmanned probe. So close that they walked to it and took samples from it.

( image of both spacecraft)

This proved once and for all that they could land the spacecraft on target. That was quite an achievement.

Apart from making blockbuster films, Cameron explores the depths of the oceans and is a member of the NASA Advisory Council and the Mars Society

I'm sure James Cameron is a smart guy and everything, but I'm curious what makes him more qualified to be on the NASA Advisory Coucil than say, 50% of Slashdot readers who I'm sure are just as scientifically knowledgeable, if not a few hundred times as knowledgeable on the topics important to NASA. I mean, other than his bucket-loads of money, of course.

I'm not saying NASA should come recruit their Advisory Council on Slashdot, but I would certainly question the quality of the advice when movie directors are providing it. I mean, check out his resume on their site. It's a good resume for a movie director, but for an advisor to NASA?

And don't get me wrong, I don't think someone should be excluded because they're in a profession. I mean, I'm sure Asimov, Clarke and some other Sci-Fi authors would be able to provide valuable advice in the area of space exploration because, if nothing else, they tend to spend a lot of time thinking of the realism of the ideas in their books (something movie directors aren't particularly noted for).

I mean really, go look at all the resumes of the members on the site and then play the Sesame Street game of "Which of these things doesn't belong?"

Apollo 12 lunar surface journal.

Actually, they have all of them and some are pretty good reads.

Apollo 12 lunar surface journal.

Actually, they have all of them and some are pretty good reads.

Back in September, NASA selected 11 companies to conduct preliminary concept studies for human lunar exploration and the development of the NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle. Many of these are your typical aerospace dinosaurs, but a notable exception is t/Space, a new company which includes people like Burt Rutan (of Scaled Composites and SpaceShipOne), Elon Musk (of SpaceX), Red Whittaker (of the Red Team, which constructed an autonomous vehicle which competed in DARPA's Grand Challenge), and several of the new companies in the budding private space industry.

According to their page: Our core mission requirement is to enable prompt, affordable, safe and sustainable lunar exploration and development by the largest possible number of Americans, both in person and via telepresence.

Under our approach, government incentives focus exclusively on top-level goals, with technology and operational choices left to the private sector. The government incentives will be matched to specific top-level needs, but the "invisible hand" of market forces will shape choices as they flow down multiple supplier chains. Incentives will be structured so that several companies in each major area have an opportunity to win this support. With this competitive industrial base, two major processes become possible:

* Market forces will continually launch new products that replace established goods and services (the "creative destruction" that Joseph Schumpeter [Austrian economist 1883-1950] identified as the key element of capitalism). Poorly performing systems will be killed off quickly via competition rather than via burdensome NASA reviews or Congressional intervention.
* Capability gap analyses will be performed by dozens and ultimately hundreds of companies on a continuous basis. As happens now in all competitive industries, the successful companies will be those who listen closely to their customers and accurately predict their future needs - in other words, capability gap analysis by multiple independent profit-seekers.

Commercial firms will create and own infrastructure that offers services that overlap in many cases. The overlaps found in a competitive private space economy will provide the resiliency now lacking in single-string solutions such as the Space Shuttle and Space Station, for which there are no ready alternatives. While functional overlaps are viewed as inefficiencies in centrally-planned systems, in a market-based system they drive costs lower (by reducing monopoly power and spurring innovation) and accelerate schedules (by eliminating single-point bottlenecks among suppliers and spurring competition).

If I understand correctly, tSpace's plan is to design an overall space architecture, and have companies compete for different components, whether they be launch vehicles, space station life support modules, or lunar landers. Many of these components will also be available commercially, keeping the price down and the reliability high. I suspect it's going to be difficult to keep from being eaten alive by the huge aerospace companies (Boeing, Lockheed, etc.), but I have a hope that they'll somehow end up getting the contract and end up completely reforming our approach to space.

I highly recommend reading through their presentation. The things they discuss are quite insightful, and they have some incredible ideas. Here's a few of their points:

Safety results from design choices, not oversight
* Attempting to produce safety by inspection, quality control,

I love the bit where the writer describes the recommendation by the software engineer to ignore the reported errors as "a gutsy call". There's these guys, in a tiny little spacecraft, about to land on the moon, with most of the world watching, and the prestige of the USA and indeed democracy and capitalism at stake. The computer's screaming error messages. If you call for an abort, the moon effort is a flop (at least temporarily). If you call proceed and the thing craters, you're going to be the guy whose screwup killed two American heroes. "Gutsy"...more like balls of titanium!

>all I have ever cared (heck, even known) to be remotely important was Apollo 11 and Apollo 13.

yap, the first one, and the one which failed. probably the only missions most people can think of, cos they were the more spectacular missions.

but the real missions were the later ones. like 16 & 17 with over 70h time on the lunar surface. they grew much more confident with what they can and cant do on the moon in the later missions.

flight summary of manned apollo missions
apollo lunar surface journals

>all I have ever cared (heck, even known) to be remotely important was Apollo 11 and Apollo 13.

yap, the first one, and the one which failed. probably the only missions most people can think of, cos they were the more spectacular missions.

but the real missions were the later ones. like 16 & 17 with over 70h time on the lunar surface. they grew much more confident with what they can and cant do on the moon in the later missions.

flight summary of manned apollo missions
apollo lunar surface journals

From abc.net.au:

Do this with a computer that has barely 5,000 primitive integrated circuits, weighs 30 kg and costs over $150,000. In order to store your software, the computer doesn't have a disk drive, only 74 kilobytes of memory that has been literally hard-wired, and all of 4 Kb of something that is sort of like RAM.

NASA explains it a little better, noting that the 74KB is actually 37KW, using 16-bit words:

• Hardware

  The guidance computer is a general-purpose digital machine with a basic word length, in parallel operations, of 15 bits with an added bit for parity checks. The instruction code includes subroutines for double and triple operations. Memory cycle time is 11.7 microseconds with a single addition time of 23.4 microseconds. The 'core rope', used for the fixed memory, has a capacity of about 36,864 words with an erasable memory (of ferrite core planes) of 2,048 words. The processor is formed from integrated circuits (ICs). The total computer weight is 29.5 kg. The fixed memory contains programmes, routines, constants, star and landmark co-ordinates and other pertinent data. The erasable memory acts as an intermediate store for results of computations, auxiliary programme information, and variable data supplied by the G&N and other systems of the spacecraft.