Light Years Ahead | The 1969 Apollo Guidance Computer

Half a century ago, on 20 July 1969, Neil Armstrong was in the final stages of the lunar descent, just a few thousand feet above the surface, when suddenly his on-board computer indicated a critical alarm. For three nail-biting seconds it looked as if the mission would have to be aborted. However, Armstrong was given a "go" to continue, and after several more alarms the Eagle touched down safely on the Moon.
Robert Wills introduces the amazing hardware and software that made up the Apollo Guidance Computer, walks you through the landing procedure step-by-step, and talks about the pioneering design principles that were used to make the landing software robust against any failure. He also explains the problems that occurred during the Apollo 11 landing, and shows you how the Apollo Guidance Computer played its part in saving the mission.
Recorded: 26th October, 2019.


  1. The Immersion Process

    The Immersion Process35 phút trước

    Robert might need a bigger venue next time.. truly fascinating, engaging with a perfect sprinkling of humour.

  2. Wahrheitsfinder

    Wahrheitsfinder44 phút trước

    What about the hardware bug later during rendezvous operation when the radar was actually needed?

  3. samysaar

    samysaar2 giờ trước

    Especially the part he thinks is boring is really interesting for me.

  4. Knarf Trakiul

    Knarf Trakiul10 giờ trước

    Long gone are these days..

  5. Knarf Trakiul

    Knarf Trakiul10 giờ trước

    Back when engineers were amazing and people were good at creating stuff with their hands.

  6. Daniel Revo

    Daniel Revo13 giờ trước

    NASA never a straight answer. How did apollo get through the van allen belts ? They didn't one giant hoax for mankind.

  7. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun11 giờ trước

    Daniel Revo needs to *GET A LIFE,* as do all NASA haters!

  8. Jan Strzelecki

    Jan Strzelecki12 giờ trước

    _NASA never a straight answer._ If you don't understand the answer, then the fault is yours, not NASA's. _How did apollo get through the van allen belts ?_ The flew through them, around the high radiation regions. There are countless articles and videos about it, explaining the nuts and bolts of the process, and detailing the dosage received by the astronauts. It's not a mystery, it checks out, and it's not a hoax. If you were told otherwise, then you were lied to.

  9. Luca Hoffmann

    Luca Hoffmann22 giờ trước

    light years ahead...? its a distance not a time scale

  10. Atlas

    Atlas21 giờ trước

    it doesn't matter.

  11. steve conn

    steve conn22 giờ trước

    It was sad when the three evil Kryptonians then tore apart the craft and killed all the astronauts.

  12. Sean Brennan

    Sean BrennanNgày trước

    He's a great storyteller, people like him make me really want to believe the moon landing was real because of how great it would have been. But there were no i phone screens like the one shown in the talk in 1969, that's just a simple fact. Its really sad they still won't admit Apollo was a propaganda hoax after all this time.

  13. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    What phone screens? They certainly had displays.

  14. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun20 giờ trước

    @Sean Brennan Agreed. NASA haters ARE dimwits!

  15. Atlas

    AtlasNgày trước

    @Jan Strzelecki 🤷‍♂️

  16. Jan Strzelecki

    Jan StrzeleckiNgày trước

    @Atlas Maybe he means the AGC display?..

  17. Atlas

    AtlasNgày trước

    phone screens?

  18. Robert Reid

    Robert ReidNgày trước

    Excellent talk. Thank you!

  19. Muddobber McCrablice

    Muddobber McCrabliceNgày trước

    I don’t care for the speaker, he’s too dramatic.

  20. Joshua Cohn

    Joshua CohnNgày trước

    What a fantastic explanation of the descent from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. I've heard several explanations of the famous (or is it infamous?) 1202 & 1201 alarms and this was, by far, the most comprehensive and understandable. Actually, it was also the most relatable explanation of the DSKY system as well. Robert Wills is not only a great teacher, he is also a masterful storyteller. Bravo and thank you!

  21. Matt Swift

    Matt SwiftNgày trước

    "Execute Program 66"

  22. kirune tora

    kirune toraNgày trước

    Nice piece of mini documentary, but you're naive if you think the likes of Bezos and those above him care a dime about regular folks.

  23. Ashley Law

    Ashley Law2 ngày trước

    They never went to the Moon. Can't go today. Low Earth orbit is and has always been the limit.

  24. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    And yet I was downloading data from the multiple ALSEP installations installed on the lunar surface by the astronauts, at our tracking station (Orroral) here in Australia.

  25. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfunNgày trước

    Either *PROVE* your claims, or shut your dimwitted lie hole!

  26. Gerard Kuzawa

    Gerard Kuzawa2 ngày trước

    In my never humble opinion, this is all idiotic propaganda for something that was not capable of being done with the computers supposedly on board. Yes, if the Lunar Modul at least had a Tandy 1000 it may have almost been able to do what this bloke is supposedly claiming to have happened, but the "Space Program" was only of an age that that was rudimentary to the Altair. If the space flights happened at all, it was all reticles on a window and flying by the seat of one's pants.

  27. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    THe LVDC and AGC are real and still exist.

  28. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun20 giờ trước

    @Gerard Kuzawa You ask for proof for the claims of others, yet you FAIL to provide any for YOUR claims. Get a life!

  29. Atlas

    AtlasNgày trước

    ​@Gerard Kuzawa CGI in the 1950s were essentially lines on a oscilloscope. Here's the proof: An independent observatory in Britain was able to acquire pictures from the soviet moon probe using their own antennas. This is impossible to fake. Thanks for playing.

  30. Gerard Kuzawa

    Gerard KuzawaNgày trước

    @Atlas Show me proof of said Soviets having landed anything on the moon. CGI was possible in the 1950's; Can you verify that bullshit of yesteryear does not stink today?

  31. Atlas

    AtlasNgày trước

    How did the soviets managed to land a spacecraft on the moon if the computers back then where not good enough?

  32. Youscary2009

    Youscary20092 ngày trước

    My dad worked on the redundant guidance systems for Apollo. They used it on one mission. I didn’t know until after he died.

  33. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun11 giờ trước

    @Stefan Agreed, *YOU* are pathetic!

  34. Stefan

    Stefan13 giờ trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun NASA is pathetic

  35. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun20 giờ trước

    @Stefan You NASA haters are truly pathetic!

  36. Stefan

    StefanNgày trước

    Hmm so your dad never found out it was all fake, a hollywood production? 🤔

  37. Victor Gil

    Victor Gil2 ngày trước

    Amazing talk

  38. Kent Olinger

    Kent Olinger2 ngày trước

    HE WENT CASUAL for this speaking engagement.

  39. Jin Kuang

    Jin Kuang2 ngày trước

    How long before people stop the pretend the realize the 1960s moon landing AND RETURN is a hoax? Back then we did not have the historical and technological perspective, so we could be easily fooled. Now with 2021 technology understanding, it is a joke to not realize in 1960s we did not have the capability to do a smooth landing on the moon, and rocket the landing capsule (with life support) back to the moon the orbit. And on first try too. And we could not repeat after 11 times successful landing on the moon and suddenly lost our capability. This is NOT how technology progress in reality. So please stop the BS. Just smile with a grin.

  40. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    @Jin Kuang Nothing disappeared or list. Easy enough to find if you bothered to look...

  41. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun2 ngày trước

    @Jin Kuang It sure does *SUCK* to be you, little fella. *GROW UP!*

  42. Atlas

    Atlas2 ngày trước

    @Jin Kuang It did not suddenly disappear, that's nonsense. The Apollo program was cancelled, and the technology dismantled and repurposed.

  43. Jin Kuang

    Jin Kuang2 ngày trước

    @Atlas Fundamentally inconsistent with human progress. 11 successful landing, like walking in the part. Then suddenly disappear, claiming lost technology, and never be able to do it again, while the human technology has gone leaps and bounds. BS!

  44. Atlas

    Atlas2 ngày trước


  45. L Foggy

    L Foggy3 ngày trước

    Great talk, thanks.I watched Apollo 11 when I was five years old and its one of my first memories. It influenced my life and career in science....

  46. MovieGuy

    MovieGuy3 ngày trước

    As a basic programmer on my commodore64 back in the 80s i have to say i had it easy.

  47. Laudemar Gonzalez

    Laudemar Gonzalez3 ngày trước

    Ok. For argument's sake, let's say that everything he stated is true and that the USA did land men on the moon and return them safely back to earth SIX times (!) in just three years. If so, today, more than 50 years later, it should be easy to do. It should be easy not only for the USA, but also for China, Russia and other technologically advanced nations. You might argue that the USA doesn't want to go back. (LOL), ok, but can you also tell me that Russia and (even more) China don't want to do it? Everything we did in the 1960's and 70's we can do faster, better and more cheaply today. Everything except ONE thing. Guess.

  48. Laudemar Gonzalez

    Laudemar Gonzalez2 ngày trước

    @GH1618 I agree, ok, sure. Everything you said. However, you haven't addressed the point(s) I made in my post. You just stated facts right past it.

  49. GH1618

    GH16182 ngày trước

    It isn’t easy. It took thousands of people and a lot of money to visit the moon. And it was dangerous. Three astronauts died on Apollo 1 and three more had a narrow escape on Apollo 13. Space travel is inherently difficult, expensive, and dangerous.

  50. Russian View

    Russian View3 ngày trước

    russian Luna landed there earlier I think

  51. magicAAA

    magicAAA3 ngày trước

    Basically saying: If the MIT had Minecraft back then, the Apollo missions would´ve been flown on Redstone dust. Noice!

  52. Kels

    Kels20 giờ trước

    I.e., a binary redstone computer could handle these calculations if tied to gyro inputs

  53. Jewpsy Altprager

    Jewpsy Altprager21 giờ trước

    Ugh, what?

  54. Nicolas Kowalski

    Nicolas Kowalski3 ngày trước

    What happened to P65??

  55. Barry R McCain

    Barry R McCain3 ngày trước

    excellent presentation.

  56. Lee Williams

    Lee Williams3 ngày trước

    I love the topics of space exploration, as well as, how computer software and hardware work together. Having all three topics delivered in the manner that Robert did was extremely engaging. Using simple language, great details, analogies, and examples. I sat through his entire presentation (1:21:21) including the Q&A portion at the end and never paused the video, or got up for anything. I will recommend this video to anyone that has an interest in the Apollo Guidance Computer, Computers, Space Exploration and/or public speaking. This is, by far, one of the best videos/presentations I've watched on VIshows. Well done Robert!

  57. SingularAttitude

    SingularAttitude3 ngày trước

    Yall ain't gonna shout out MIT Draper Labs?!

  58. Some Dude

    Some Dude4 ngày trước

    So how did they get through the radiation belt twice and live. Always a fascinating thing nasa does but they seem pretty hush hush on the really neat questions involving technology solving serious problems.

  59. Atlas

    Atlas16 giờ trước

    @Some Dude What was the answer you got and why were you not satisfied with it?

  60. Some Dude

    Some Dude17 giờ trước

    @Atlas it’s not that I didn’t look it up I just wasn’t satisfied with the answer But I understand your point.

  61. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    Maybe you need to have a look at what James Van Allen said?

  62. Atlas

    Atlas3 ngày trước

    That's because you didn't bother to look it up.

  63. Edward Snowwdn

    Edward Snowwdn4 ngày trước

  64. John Lacy

    John Lacy4 ngày trước

    Absolutely Brilliant - Really enjoyed that.

  65. Bo Soerjadi

    Bo Soerjadi4 ngày trước

    The solid questions from the audience triggered me to look up what tnmoc stands for.

  66. NeoMorph WTH

    NeoMorph WTH4 ngày trước

    Someone can’t do math... it’s closer to Apollo landing at 52. Yes, Apollo started being designed in the 60’s but they did a BIG update with the block II systems.

  67. Bob McKenna

    Bob McKenna4 ngày trước

    Great job, always wanted to know what it was like to land on the mean. Friendly accent mockery, that's all.

  68. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun4 ngày trước

    Yes. We know that you moon well, in saying that ;)

  69. Platoface

    Platoface4 ngày trước

    People who believe we went to the moon they showed the public is hilarious.

  70. Atlas

    Atlas4 ngày trước

    Really? How so?

  71. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun4 ngày trước

    Yeah. Moonlanding deniers ARE pathetic!

  72. Slovenia94

    Slovenia944 ngày trước

    Programmers back then: *Finely tuning and optimizing their code to make it run as efficiently as possible* Programmers today: "Get a faster cpu, loser"

  73. Mike Bukowski

    Mike Bukowski4 ngày trước

    Hahahahaha what BS.. You can’t use technology that doesn’t exist. Lmmfao

  74. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    @Mike Bukowski Nothing is lost. Nearly everything still exists except most of the people, and all the blueprints are on the web.

  75. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun3 ngày trước

    @Mike Bukowski It is *NOT* my fault that you dimwitted little NASA haters cannot debunk the moonlandings. Sucks to be you!

  76. Mike Bukowski

    Mike Bukowski3 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun I’ll take “what makes no sense for $500.

  77. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun3 ngày trước

    @Mike Bukowski Cause and effect, little fella. Grow up!

  78. Mike Bukowski

    Mike Bukowski4 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun why so nasty?

  79. Ben Wathen

    Ben Wathen5 ngày trước

    24:10...LOL.....thought he was almost going to say 'after about 30 seconds of sort of f%$ck1ng about with the rocket engine'...…great lecture though, loved the amount of detailed explanation, what an amazing bit of kit!!!

  80. Timothy Cedarcrest

    Timothy Cedarcrest5 ngày trước

    Very extraordinary presentation. Answered deep complex questions that I wondered about for years regarding the LM computer interface.

  81. David

    David5 ngày trước

    Imagine going through all that trouble to have technology produced that - in the minds of the engineers - would _actually_ take that vessel to the moon, only to have Stanley Kubrick to film a mock of the whole thing.

  82. James stovall

    James stovall5 ngày trước

    What a waste of time .

  83. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun4 ngày trước

    Don't put yourself down like that!

  84. Digital Intel

    Digital Intel5 ngày trước

    Considering that we've not left low earth orbit = load of bullocks.

  85. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun4 ngày trước

    Digital Dopey needs to *GET A LIFE, A CLUE - AND A JOB!*

  86. Atlas

    Atlas5 ngày trước

    we have.

  87. Pranesh Pal

    Pranesh Pal5 ngày trước

    The MIT team located the source of the error with only two or three hours to spare. In anticipation of a possible abort, Aldrin had insisted that the spacecraft’s rendezvous radar remain turned on. (

  88. Chris 432T

    Chris 432T5 ngày trước

    Excellent! Very entertaining and well spoken. Thank you.

  89. Mark Taylor

    Mark Taylor5 ngày trước

    Did the computer improve by Apollo 17?

  90. GH1618

    GH16184 ngày trước

    Same computer, with some improvements in gate packaging.

  91. King Sethos

    King Sethos5 ngày trước

    One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.

  92. Gary Robinson

    Gary Robinson5 ngày trước

    How did the lunar lander take back off without causing a huge dust cloud?

  93. Atlas

    Atlas5 ngày trước

    it did cause a dust cloud.

  94. Gary Robinson

    Gary Robinson5 ngày trước

    @GH1618 thank you for replying. I still find it hard to buy on the films being all or even mostly filmed on the moon. I do believe they went up there and the missions were a lot more on the secret side than what was revealed. That being said I dot see how they even had room for all the fuel to lift The lander/all the rocks, and two astronaughts into orbit and then have enough to maneuver to capsule back to the orbiter Then return home. I do believe we landed on the moon but have an extremely hard time believing all the footage being authentic.

  95. GH1618

    GH16185 ngày trước

    The lander was in two parts. The lower part stayed on the surface. The upper part separated and rose to orbit. The lower part shielded the blast to some extent.

  96. Ricardo Balda

    Ricardo Balda5 ngày trước

    Great video and deep knowlogy of AGC computer.

  97. Personal. Kevin Bone

    Personal. Kevin Bone5 ngày trước

    Little known history: The US Navy's super secret sub, the NR1, used two AGC's for its guidance system. This was a deep diving nuclear sub with a crew of a dozen. Navigating the deep ocean was more complex than landing on the moon. This adds two more to the number of units built -- that we can document using declassified data.

  98. Obe Watkinobe

    Obe Watkinobe5 ngày trước

    For decades I have longed for this kind of breakdown of how the guidance computer actually worked. I am so glad I finally found someone who could explain it in terms I could understand. THANK YOU!

  99. ModItBetter

    ModItBetter5 ngày trước

    2 things.. One amazing they didn't wait for Margaret to pass away before she got a well deserved award.. And somebody has to hit up netflix or something to make a updated movie on her .. Just today before i watched this talk I had watched a old candid camera where they trick people into thinking a female was the Pilot of the airplane (Candid Camera Classic: First Female Pilot) and that was in 1963 .. So got to be some drama she went through you would think.. Ok 3 things.. One of the best talks I have seen in a long time and I do watch lots of TED... When he went to questions, it still only felt like 20 mins in at most..

  100. Court Ben

    Court Ben5 ngày trước

    Google's algorithm is getting a little scary. This was recommended and I thought I will watch for two minutes then move to something else. I ended up watching the whole thing. Hats off this was rather interesting. Oddly I started thinking of Monty Python while watching this.

  101. D e x

    D e x5 ngày trước

    The disappointment is that I cannot find an answer why 94% braking thrust. And no one asked.

  102. GH1618

    GH16184 ngày trước

    The descent engine would have been designed with a little more power than necessary, because of uncertainties. Then, for an actual mission, the maximum thrust to be used would be determined to get the desired landing profile.

  103. Jose R

    Jose R6 ngày trước

    The Apollo Guidance Computer: "I need 55W and I flew the Apollo missions to the moon and back" My GTX 1080: "I consume 150W and Cyberpunk scares me"

  104. Allan Radcliffe

    Allan Radcliffe19 giờ trước

    maybe also bitbusters? pretty funny, 4sure

  105. Edo Pronk

    Edo Pronk6 ngày trước

    Very good story structure; I didn't know if I would listen the whole story, but I got curious about the error And what a piece of engineering, that computer.

  106. gonzo_the _great

    gonzo_the _great6 ngày trước

    Watching this talk for the 2nd (possibly the 3rd!) time..... A thought.... Surely, the checklists for the landing would be available in the public domain, so working out if the rendezvous radar was left on by accident or by design, should be easy to determine?

  107. That Saviour

    That Saviour6 ngày trước

    Really interesting and glad it answered deeper questions that I didn't know where to ask and get them quickly.

  108. Peter Camuso Jr

    Peter Camuso Jr6 ngày trước

    I am going to speculate that alot of the testing simulations were performed with analog computers not digital computers. The programs were implemented on patch panels. I am guessing because my group was still using analog computers for flight dynamics well into the 1980 's. There are not code listings for analog computers. Just differential equations and transistor based integrators.


    DOC HOLIDAY6 ngày trước

    They destroyed that technology apparently & its a painful process to invent it again :quote from don pettit, a so called nasa astronaut. Why do nasa train astronauts in a pool ? The complete opposite of a vaccum.. where is the time lapse footage of the construction of the ISS ? apparently the most technologicaly advanced structure built by man !!!

  110. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun5 ngày trước

    @Atlas Sadly, Wang Chunks is NOT interested in facts. Such is the way with NASA haters.

  111. Atlas

    Atlas6 ngày trước

    It took some 20 years to completely build it. Expecting a timelapse of that is just silly.

  112. shullln

    shullln6 ngày trước

    Give us a reading on the 1202 program alarm....

  113. Pilot Wave Pictures

    Pilot Wave Pictures6 ngày trước

    I started watching this, expecting to glaze over and zone out after about 5 minutes but I was captivated from beginning to end, what a great lecture. Thanks for posting!

  114. Aerostar

    Aerostar6 ngày trước

    Absolutely outstanding presentation on the subject of how Apollo 11 LM landed on the moon using the guidance computer. Not only highly educational but very amusing in parts. Really well worth a watch to add to your knowledge of Apollo.

  115. Noseefood

    Noseefood6 ngày trước

    Rare gem of a find on YT

  116. American Hacker

    American Hacker6 ngày trước

    Lol, he said , " the first thing we need is a rocket engine " what about the 6 inches of lead surrounding the astronauts to protect them from the radiation

  117. Stephen Page-Murray

    Stephen Page-Murray18 giờ trước

    @American Hacker You need a better education.

  118. Jan Strzelecki

    Jan Strzelecki5 ngày trước

    @American Hacker _Six was a guess..._ _I assume..._ As long as we're clear that you're only guessing here 🙂 _man has went no further than the upper atmosphere and need to constantly refuel to keep orbit_ That's not how orbital mechanics work. _If anyone believes we went to the moon in a tin can_ Your personal incredulity is not evidence. _and landed and took off perfectly_ We didn't. Each _Apollo_ landing had its share of problems. _without even causing a crater under the vessel_ As expected. _and if you haven't watched something funny happened on the way to the moon_ The correct title is "A funny thing happened on the way to the Moon". Also, I have watched it. It's not physically possible to actually fake that footage the way the narrator claims it was done and achieve results consistent with the _Apollo_ footage.

  119. Atlas

    Atlas5 ngày trước

    @American Hacker Stop guessing, then. It makes you look like a fool. The radiation present in the van allen belts are not x-rays, it's mostly trapped proton and electrons. You get X -rays from slowing down the particles too quickly. That would have been case if they used lead. Also, you don't need a 2 inch thick lead vest to stop x-rays, that's asinine. Just like I said before, stop guessing. If you know f*ck all about radiation, keep your damn mouth shut about it. You also don't need to constantly refuel to keep in orbit, that's again, as it seems to be the case with everything that comes out of your mouth, nonsense. Spacecraft do need to be reboosted every once in a while, but not all the time. The ISS for example needs to be reboosted about once a month.

  120. American Hacker

    American Hacker5 ngày trước

    Six was a guess , since your talking about x-ray what do they use to protect you from that tiny amount of radiation? That's right , a 2 inch thick lead vest , if it's true that we are surrounded by the van allen belt then I assume we need more than you do when visiting the dentist , proverbs will and always hold true like the one I'm sure you have heard , what goes up must come down , man has went no further than the upper atmosphere and need to constantly refuel to keep orbit , if anyone thinks that 19 bill went playing with r.c. toys on mars then I have some swamp land Im selling dirt cheap in florida . If anyone believes we went to the moon in a tin can and landed and took off perfectly without even causing a crater under the vessel as it thrusted down to land and if you haven't watched something funny happened on the way to the moon , well then maybe you should .

  121. Jan Strzelecki

    Jan Strzelecki6 ngày trước

    @Atlas They just mindlessly repeat what they were told. If I recall correctly, the origin of that claim was some supposed "Soviet research results", ones that nobody can find or present, of course 🙂

  122. John Rauner

    John Rauner6 ngày trước

    This guys voice is SOOOOO irritating. Can't watch.

  123. Kevin McGill

    Kevin McGill6 ngày trước

    Fascinating and superbly presented

  124. Brian Case

    Brian Case6 ngày trước

    This is an excellent talk and overview of the AGC, but this guy needs to do just a little more research. First, the *two-input* NOR (NAND also works, they're duals) is the most primitive gate from which any binary digital logic circuit can be constructed. Three-input gates let's you get the job done with fewer. Second, no, not any mathematician would be shocked by ones-complement arithmetic. The first super-computers (from control data corporation, e.g., there were others) used ones-complement arithmetic. Having a 15-bit word size is not limiting on the size of numbers that can be represented; it limits what can be represented in *one* word. What's strange about a 15-bit word size is that it's not a power of two number of bits. The ability to have double- and triple-length integers bestows increased *precision,* not increased accuracy. Etc. Having said all that, thanks for a great talk.

  125. Brian Case

    Brian Case4 ngày trước

    @GH1618 There are other advantages of having everything be a power-of-two in size. These advantages were obviously not needed for the AGC (I'm sure they were informed enough to consider the tradeoffs). I have no doubt they optimized every aspect for efficiency. But, in a true general-purpose processor, having word size be a power of two is advantageous; for example, it allows you to easily consider a region of memory as a collection of bits and to then compute a bit address efficiently. As you pointed out, same for bytes.

  126. GH1618

    GH16184 ngày trước

    Yes, three inputs on the gates is a choice made for efficient logic design. Many early computers had word lengths which were not powers of two. IBM adopted the convention with the System/360 so they could have addressable 8-bit bytes. This was convenient for text processing. Computers dedicated to numeric processing don’t need it.

  127. Joel Turpin

    Joel Turpin6 ngày trước

    When the alarms appeared, no one knew what they meant, except for an anonymous young man, maybe 25 years old, named Bales. He was the one who shouted we are go! Every time the alarms arose He saved the mission.

  128. Joel Turpin

    Joel Turpin6 ngày trước

    Armstrong did indeed take over manually and made the moon landing.

  129. Michael Ritter

    Michael Ritter6 ngày trước

    This video is giving me a stable member.

  130. ColinWatters

    ColinWatters6 ngày trước

    1969: "1202 Alarm!"......"We are go on that alarm". 2021: "1202 Alarm!"......"All our agents are busy right now but your call is important to us".

  131. pbwbrian53

    pbwbrian536 ngày trước

    Absolutely fascinating! Thank you from someone who started coding around the time of the first moon landing.

  132. Groove Monkey

    Groove Monkey6 ngày trước

    Van Allen Radiation Belts?

  133. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent6 ngày trước

    @Atlas I KNEW IT! SUSPENDERS! YES!!!!!

  134. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @Kyle Laurent Indeed. If the belt, or suspender, is long enough, perhaps Grove Monkey can use it - to swing between trees, and get to a safe distance from Tarzan ;) .

  135. Atlas

    Atlas6 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun Doctor Van Allen wore suspenders.

  136. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent6 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun you're right. I wonder if Groove Monkey can chime in oh his preference of belts or suspenders.

  137. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @Kyle Laurent Hmmm. "Van Halen suspenders" doesn't roll off the tongue as easily as "Van Halen belts" does ;) .

  138. Daniel West

    Daniel West7 ngày trước

    The work of scientists cannot be diminished but the same medal to Rush Limbaugh makes the medal as meaningless as the Nobel peace prize to the mass serial killer Henry Kissinger and President Barack Obama who persecuted immorally more whistle blowers and oversaw the slaughtering of more innocents for the full eight years of wars started on lies than any other president in history .

  139. Atlas

    Atlas6 ngày trước


  140. Rick E

    Rick E7 ngày trước

    Im guessing Buzz Aldrin isn't using 1202 as his pin number for anything

  141. galactock

    galactock7 ngày trước

    It's hilarious if people think we went to the moon back then and Nixon makes a phone call to them on the moon, we can't go there now and no human has even been close to the Van Allen radiation belt since. Among other ridiculous things they claimed to do up there. 0 of the moon landing footage shown on tv was shot on the moon.

  142. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @Atlas I think it all comes down to their general contempt for truth, facts - and reality in general. Such is the way, with flat earthers, and science haters.

  143. Atlas

    Atlas6 ngày trước

    I genuinely don't understand how people can be so convinced the van allen belts are impenetrable for humans.

  144. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @galactock Agreed. NASA haters, and space travel deniers, ARE *dimwits!*

  145. Dan Severns

    Dan Severns6 ngày trước

    Or is it “Moon Shinning” by Fabrice Mathieu?

  146. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent6 ngày trước

    @galactock you didn't even attempt to answer my questions. You're not very good at backing up your own arguments.

  147. James Watson

    James Watson7 ngày trước

    This is fascinating 🧐.

  148. 0-Mr_ Holmes-0

    0-Mr_ Holmes-07 ngày trước

    the guidance computer was great especially since it didn't have to carry anyone anywhere....they just had to drive to a set designed to look like the moon.

  149. Atlas

    Atlas6 ngày trước

    That's just wrong.

  150. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    Agreed. Moonlanding deniers ARE *dimwits!*

  151. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent6 ngày trước

    That's ridiculously stupid.

  152. Sue Kennedy

    Sue Kennedy7 ngày trước

    They landed on the moon but forgot to make videos showing how thy put on and took off their moon suits inside the LEM. Total hoax.

  153. Sue Kennedy

    Sue Kennedy3 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun Why are you so desperate for a lady friend? CNCmachiningisfun Highlighted reply CNCmachiningisfun 1 hour ago @Sue Kennedy GET A LIFE!

  154. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun3 ngày trước

    @Sue Kennedy *GET A LIFE!*

  155. GH1618

    GH16184 ngày trước

    The astronauts did not change suits in the Lunar Module. They suited up in the Command Module and were suited for the duration until they returned to the CM.

  156. Sue Kennedy

    Sue Kennedy5 ngày trước

    @Killua2001 Killua2001 Highlighted reply Killua2001 1 hour ago @Sue Kennedy The hell are you talking about? I'm just commenting on how people like you seem to try extra hard to sound as crazy as possible, and here you go doubling down on that exact sentiment. I swear a bot might make more sense.

  157. Killua2001

    Killua20015 ngày trước

    @Sue Kennedy The hell are you talking about? I'm just commenting on how people like you seem to try extra hard to sound as crazy as possible, and here you go doubling down on that exact sentiment. I swear a bot might make more sense.

  158. Chris Kirsten

    Chris Kirsten7 ngày trước

    Given the complexity of what Robert presented here, the answer "They forgot to turn the radar off" was politically motivated because it would cost a thousand "sound bytes" to explain. Imagine the fall out against NASA if that "truth" came out.

  159. Chris Kirsten

    Chris Kirsten10 giờ trước

    @Atlas That leaves me very sad. All the best to you for the future.

  160. Atlas

    AtlasNgày trước

    @Chris Kirsten I regret starting this conversation very much.

  161. Chris Kirsten

    Chris KirstenNgày trước

    Apologies. The text "censures" are a fault of my browser. The link to the site where you can read about Don Eyles and the Apollo 11 AGC glitch is gone; however. Watch to the real end to get and open view of what I said at first. Pointing fingers is useless, though we do need to see what actually went wrong for future training and management.

  162. Chris Kirsten

    Chris KirstenNgày trước

    @Atlas Your response is influenced by the fact that VIshows censored a link to another video which gives an "official" take on this subject. Likewise another section has been stripped after the words "the truth and the lie" in the long paragraph. So let's leave it there. Looks like you go the idea anyway. Happiness.

  163. Atlas

    Atlas2 ngày trước

    @Chris Kirsten bit pretentious but okay

  164. Paul Christian

    Paul Christian7 ngày trước

    However, the real question is whether we will ever discover intelligent life on earth.

  165. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    Hmmm. The search upon this planet will surely be eternal.

  166. YeTsom Gize

    YeTsom Gize7 ngày trước

    This almost makes you believe they went to the moon.

  167. YeTsom Gize

    YeTsom Gize5 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun Don't hate NASA, just lies.

  168. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun5 ngày trước

    @YeTsom Gize Agreed. NASA haters ARE dimwits!

  169. YeTsom Gize

    YeTsom Gize6 ngày trước

    @CNCmachiningisfun I beg to differ 🙂

  170. Killua2001

    Killua20016 ngày trước

    @YeTsom Gize I'm more bewildered. It's like, we've got computers these days which were literally predicated on this technology. So how on earth do you people get lead into such a rabbit hole? Does the idea of people understanding the actual mechanics of what went on in the early development of computers scare you that much? What's your goal? Is this just an ego trip, trying to tell everyone else how much "smarter" you are than "sheep" who.... watch videos about the Apollo Guidance Computer in their spare time?

  171. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @YeTsom Gize It sure does suck to be *YOU,* kiddo!

  172. Rafael Washington

    Rafael Washington7 ngày trước

    Now I know what the DisKEY is for, I have been watching all of the lunar landings lately and now I know what it means, and this is ware Windows 3.0/3.11 got it's cooperative multi tasking from.

  173. That Drone Guy

    That Drone Guy7 ngày trước

    Great presentation but one nitpick - It wasn't so much a hardware bug per se but it was human error too. Buzz has himself stated that he turned on the Rendezvous radar on while landing in case they needed to do a rapid abort but this wasn't the way it was designed to be done, hence why it overloaded the system. That extra 15% wasn't meant to be there as NASA designed the system to have one or the other radar on - not both at the same time. They "patched" this error by adding a hard requirement to the checklist to turn it off in future. Edit - it's mentioned at the end but it's not accurate as they didn't "forget", Buzz didn't turn it off on purpose as he wanted to abort faster if needed.

  174. G Wickenden

    G Wickenden7 ngày trước

    I.use positive and minus zero all the time, now I feel guilty and out of date! :D

  175. Conely King

    Conely King7 ngày trước

    Moon landing hoax ET Plejarens know it all! Billy: We have indeed already spoken at various times about the American Moon-landing swindle. In this regard, I have now also spoken with an American who was visiting here. He was not in agreement with that which I told him regarding your explanation concerning this matter. It was his opinion that a swindle is completely impossible, because the aforementioned Moon-landing project had employed at least 100,000 humans, who most certainly had not kept silent, even if it were their duty to do so. At least a whole number of them would have talked or not held their tongues due to certain grounds. What is your opinion on that? Quetzal 1. As we have already explained several times, the Americans’ Apollo-11 Moon-landing on July 20th, 1969 did not take place, because everything was a great designed swindle, through which the entire world was fooled. 2. Also it was not so that 100,000 or more people were involved in the fraud or simply informed about it, rather a total of precisely 37 persons who were involved in that. 3. This small number was responsible for nothing trickling through, and the criminal-fraud enterprise actually could be kept secret up until the present day and this would also be the case in the future, in spite of the fact that very many anomalies in regard to the photographs and videos will be discovered by critical people and will continue to be discovered. 4. The lie will therefore continue to be sustained, and indeed in spite of the provable and clear evidence of the anomalies, which prove the falsification of the Moon-landing. 5. Further to say is, that the Moon-landing swindle is also connected to murder, and indeed in the respect that in spite of the duty of silence of those involved, a great number cannot be silent, respectively, could not be silent, which led, and will further lead, to arranged “accidents” and “illnesses” with fatal consequences, until the last involved person is no longer alive whose silence is not securely established. 6. Remaining alive are only those who are hypnotically bound with their Moon-landing lies, so they themselves believe that the Moon-landing actually was realized, or at least that they have thereby cooperated. Billy: But then how is it with the Moon-rover and the landing devices and so forth, which were supposed to have been left behind on the Moon? Quetzal 7. These are actually to be found on the Moon, whereby however these were left behind from a later Moon-landing on the Earth’s satellite. Billy: Therefore the Yanks were indeed on the Moon. Quetzal 8. Naturally, however not on the claimed point in time of July 20th, 1969. 9. In that time the mendaciously propagated and nonexistent Moon-landing was a pure political manoeuvre of the Americans, ostensibly to trump the Soviet Union in the so-called space race, to practically anticipate this and thereby to be the winner and more powerful, which was supposed to serve as a deterrent military action in regard to the Soviet Union supposedly fearing the Americans. Billy Hence the gigantic fraud of the alleged Moon-landing. Quetzal 10. That is correct. Billy And, will the truth ever come to light? Quetzal 11. That would hardly be the case because the entire fraud is played in such a way that the discovery of the truth has practically as good as no chance. 12. Also the provable contradictions of all kinds which can be allocated by the photographs and videos would bear no fruit for the acknowledgement of the truth. Billy: In the same way as with Roswell, where the spaceship crashed. Quetzal 13. That is also true, because in this case hardly a possibility exists that the secret activities will one day come to the light of truth and the humans will be enlightened about the actual truth. 14. Quite the opposite - the future will prove that the responsible ones in America will always invent new lies in order to shroud and deny the truth about the Roswell case. The smoking gun right here on their guilty faces! Movie set.. Buzz Aldrin admits we didn’t go to the moon. Neil Armstrong refusing.... Buzz punches a guy..

  176. Atlas

    Atlas6 ngày trước

    This dude literally believes in aliens coming to visit us.

  177. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    Agreed. Moonlanding deniers ARE *dimwits!*

  178. Mike Sanders

    Mike Sanders7 ngày trước

    Too many anomalies in the " lunar movie production" to be ignored. Yes, it was a necessary world event, a movie production nonetheless. A. Every ounce of weight is scrutinized yet a go-kart was unpacked & taken for a joy ride... repeatedly? B. Interviews with astronauts get flustered when asked if saw they saw stars, as none were in any "lunar" films? C. No blow out craters in the surface dust , still present for a foot print? D. Sorry boys & girls, stanley kubrick & his movie set did what was required for the national good. We own a debt of gratitude for all who pulled it off.

  179. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent6 ngày trước

    @Mike Sanders Let's be clear, when you said "Do my own research," what you really meant was "watch VIshows videos and read conspiracy blogs." Right?

  180. Mike Sanders

    Mike Sanders6 ngày trước

    Step away from the Kool-Aid tray you've obviously drank enough. Go do your own research, the undeniable evidence has been published & documented, enough to convince millions of people just like me. It was a tv production. I agree that it was a necessary series of events. Believe what you want, I too once did.

  181. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @Mike Sanders Agreed. Moonlanding deniers DO suck ass!

  182. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent7 ngày trước

    @Mike Sanders Please enlighten me as to why they wouldn't be able to bring the lunar buggy? Use numbers, and technical diagrams to back up your claim. Please, show me where the astronauts were "flustered" when asked about stars. Please show me how it would be possible to take photos of stars with 120 ISO film and an f2.8 lens. Please explain how much pressure would be needed to create a "blow out crater" on the lunar surface and correlate that with how much pressure was generated by the lunar descent module. Please tell me exactly how far away the footprint photo was taken from the lunar descent module and how much soil would have been present at that location. If you can answer those questions, then maybe you'd have a case. if you cannot, then you are just making up nonsense. But this should be easy for you since apparently you already did your research.

  183. Mike Sanders

    Mike Sanders7 ngày trước

    Wow, that's deep. However, there's a giant chasm between doing your own research and drinking the Kool-Aid as you're told.

  184. Mr. Howard

    Mr. Howard7 ngày trước

    I think the finger control software hung up when he was explaining how new job worked!

  185. David Santiago

    David Santiago7 ngày trước

    Hey answer this question for me. What happened to the sound of the rocket that was under his butt when landing on the moon? They seemed to have forgotten about that little fact. Also what happened to the crater that said rocket would have created during the landing? He left a footprint of his boot but the rocket didnt kick up a spec of df dirt? Oh and speaking of that boot print, why was the bottom of the boot design totally different than the suit they showed then boarding the ship in? Shall i go on? I think i made my point. The moon landings were OBVIOUSLY faked. Space is fake, its a violation of the second law of thermodynamics. So no, there wasnt anyone going through the wardrobe to get to narnia. Wake up to the lie already people.

  186. Killua2001

    Killua20014 ngày trước

    @David Santiago I'm saying you're ignorant because you fail to demonstrate a kindergarten level of understanding of reality. I can't 'prove' anything to someone whose mind was broken from well before they were expected to learn algebra. I need to TEACH that person first. Otherwise I'll get nowhere. I'm not interested in trying to digest Crime and Punishment for a toddler. I'd like to get you up to a bare elementary school education before I attempt any more complicated subjects.

  187. David Santiago

    David Santiago4 ngày trước

    @Killua2001 you keep saying im ignorant to bs you have been recently writing about and i havent not once commented on any of those points. Here you go again just making assumptions. Dude this looks really bad on you that you cant prove me wring yet lol

  188. Killua2001

    Killua20014 ngày trước

    @David Santiago "Elastic collisions". What a fancy word for someone who seems unable to model a ball rolling down a hill. You don't know what Einstein's Field Equations say. You have literally no concept of how to solve them. It's like asking me to tell a 3 year old how the Dirac Delta Function works. So I'm not playing that game until we can get you caught up with the past 2000 years of mathematics, and start with a damn ball rolling down a hill. I'm pretty sure you can't grasp "vectors" yet, let alone "vector spaces", so what the fuck are you asking me about GR for? You don't understand ANY of the science involved. We're not there yet. So stick to the basics. Kindergarten stuff, because it seems where you've gone wrong. How do we describe motion? What's "velocity"? Can you come up with a physical relationship for ANY basic facts. Do you understand how "Archimedes principle" isn't just "words", but an actual mathematical model? No, obviously, of course not, because your education was broken before that. I feel like I need to go back to the sundial example or else I can't progress anywhere, you're so utterly ignorant that just about nothing from the past 10,000 years is useful in getting you to understand the "physical and natural world". For someone typing on a computer, that's most impressive. How the fuck do you tie your shoes?

  189. David Santiago

    David Santiago4 ngày trước

    @Killua2001 we are talking about the physical and natural world here. I dont need all this nonsense you are writing to know that gas will dissipate if it is not physically contained. Go to a maths forum if you want to substitute actual experimentation with an equation. You think just because you come up with an equation then that is reality? Are you serious? Now you have yet to acknowledge that an independent variable is your presumed cause in an experiment. I already asked you earlier and you totally ignored me to do math for me. Since you think math is reality then explain newtowns apple falling from a tree by using ONLY Einsteins equations. Now einsteins is the current pseudoscience. The definition for pseudoscience is the non adherence to the scientific method. Im sure you already know his equations dont solve for more than one mass so is that our reality? No. So actual experimentation dude. You also ignored me telling you that our gasses would continue to fill the available volume of space. Your gravity isnt doing crap to gasses. Gasses have elastic collisions also have no bonds. Gas goes in all directions not just down. You have yet to acknowledge any of that. So no, we arent sweeping gas up off the floor. And you want to say yes ut will dissipate but we arent there yet? My ass. Maybe you arent because you cant prove your nonsense of gravity. You have no cause.. Its an assumed force. Even though gravity is not a force.

  190. Killua2001

    Killua20014 ngày trước

    @David Santiago "Entropy". There's that word again. "Dissipate". Yes, it does "dissipate", and "entropy" does tell you how... but unfortunately we're still a long way off there. Because you'll still need to understand math, because we're WAY far off from constructing a microstate and counting them up if you don't understand vectors, let alone degrees of freedom. That's why I'm aiming for an ancient greek understanding right now. Lets assume I am someone from 2500 years ago. Explain to me what the concept of "pressure" is, and how "wind" works. We're going for understanding "proportional relationships". I'm then going to use that to build "kinematics", or "equations of motion" using those simple concepts. I'm literally aiming for what could be taught to a 5 year old, so please, don't try to use words like "entropy" that you clearly don't understand. Something was broken far, far before you adopted those words. Frankly, I'm amazed you believe "carbon dioxide" is a thing given the way you construct your beliefs. We're working on the idea of "pressure". We need a definition for it. Imagine I'm someone 2500 years ago, with no knowledge whatsoever of modern science. Math will still be relevant in your description. Math will still be something we will be pulling from assuming you have as concrete a definition as people for thousands of years have provided. Edit: Although I might also be tempted to try to steer back to "buoyancy" because archimedes principle stems directly from this line of thinking. It might be a bit harder for you to grasp though than just modeling a ball rolling down a hill. I don't know, honestly this level of sheer mathematical incompetence seems hard for me to know where to begin in addressing how foundational the misgivings are.

  191. charles widmore

    charles widmore7 ngày trước

    Spectacular presentation! Thank you for sharing your knowledge. diskey makes apollo work, russian word for flying saucer diszky, anagram mr strong alien... hum How is the reproduction coming along?

  192. Andrew

    Andrew7 ngày trước

    You don't need to be alarmed when you're not actually landing on the moon. Not to take away from the amazing computation ability of the computers, because a computer can't tell a test from real world scenario.

  193. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent7 ngày trước


  194. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun7 ngày trước

    Yeah. Moonlanding hoaxers ARE dimwits!

  195. joe bloe

    joe bloe7 ngày trước

    But the Erf is flat.

  196. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun7 ngày trước

    The mun is phlat.

  197. Toy Mak

    Toy Mak7 ngày trước

    Good spin. They want us to believe that a cranky system that put out low resolution BW video and had a power lesser than early keypad phones and that enabled the "spacecraft" to fly 30 km above ground went THROUGH the very thick overhead dome 40 km above the ground, that not even the fallen angels can pass through, and then land man on a FLAT lantern moon whose backside we don't even know. And that we cannot go back to because we have "LOST" the technology to do it.

  198. Killua2001

    Killua20016 ngày trước

    Uh huh... so... like... in this apparently medieval worldview of yours, I'm sorta curious. What are stars? What are planets? What causes retrograde motion? Why can I hold my camera and take a long exposure where the stars seem to all move in a circle around a central point? Why is that point always toward the constellation Ursa Minor? This is like a time capsule of discarded scientific ideas. Truly an impressive thing to see on a device predicated on a society having unlocked quantum mechanics.

  199. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun6 ngày trước

    @Need2connect Agreed. NASA haters, religiots, and flat earthers, ARE *dimwits!*

  200. Kyle Laurent

    Kyle Laurent7 ngày trước

    @Need2connect Do you really think saying there isn't a dome is an "absurd claim"? That's too funny.

  201. Atlas

    Atlas7 ngày trước

    @Need2connect I don't have to. No one has ever been able to provide any good piece of evidence that either the dome or angels exist, so I have no reason to believe in them. Burden of proof is on you, hon.

  202. Need2connect

    Need2connect7 ngày trước

    @Atlas Provide proof of your absurd claims, please. "ThT Iz NoT ReAl" isnt quite good enough.

  203. Bill

    Bill7 ngày trước

    Memory management--what's that? :)

  204. Francisco

    Francisco7 ngày trước

    Cubic foot? What kind measurement is that? Banana scale?

  205. Joe Smith

    Joe Smith7 ngày trước


  206. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun7 ngày trước

    LOL at the clueless little NASA haters here :) .

  207. Charles Mangiafico

    Charles Mangiafico7 ngày trước

    Don't waste your time. It was all BS.It takes longer than 3 Sec for the radio sig to go from the earth to the moon and back.

  208. GH1618

    GH16184 ngày trước

    It’s about a second and a half each way, but the recorders are in Houston. When there is a statement from an astronaut at the Moon and a response from Houston, there is no transmission delay. You only notice the delay when Houston is waiting for a response.

  209. Atlas

    Atlas7 ngày trước

    @Need2connect No.

  210. Need2connect

    Need2connect7 ngày trước

    @Atlas Did you test this yourself?

  211. Atlas

    Atlas7 ngày trước

    It's more like 1.3 seconds.

  212. CNCmachiningisfun

    CNCmachiningisfun7 ngày trước

    Agreed. NASA haters ARE a waste of time!

  213. Dave Hitchman

    Dave Hitchman8 ngày trước

    Fantastic... seems like microservices in some ways

  214. The Ultimate Reductionist

    The Ultimate Reductionist8 ngày trước

    33:47 Worst error messages ever! LOL!