The Apollo Guidance Computer

[Galane]

29 minute vintage film about it. http://hackaday.com/2013/09/10/retrotechtacular-the-apollo-guidance-computer/

Simulating that in KSP would be nifty.

[TMS]

This is being built ontop of this.

May well develop further over time.

[DerekL1963]

The articles starts out with "There is so much amazing technology that came out of the space race.", which isn't really true in this case. As with so much else, NASA piggybacked on technology developed for other uses... in this case, the Polaris A2 missile, which the AGC was developed directly from.

[Drunkrobot]

While NASA didn't invent much in the space race, it did create a need for those new technologies. Space travel is the most complicated, technically challenging thing the human race does, and space missions require the best results possible, not settling for "good enough". When the technologies mature, like a guidance computer that can fit inside a spacecraft, or polarising helmet visors, or cordless power tools, people in businesses around the world sees the commercial value, and adopt the technology.

The key is that the technology had to mature. Usually, they're only at a conceptual stage, gathering little interest and seeming to many to be "not practical". Then NASA comes along, looking for some enabling tech to make their mission possible, and starts handing out the contracts.

[Galane]

NASA could stretch their budget so much further if they'd first look in the closet of previous inventions to see if some answer to their latest quest has already been done, before they go tossing out RFQ's.

A perusal through the back issues of Popular Science, Popular Mechanics and even Mechanix Illustrated would turn up many useful things ivented for possible use in space - but never went anywhere due to lack of funding, lack of interest or "That's neat, but what could it possibly be used for?" only to have a few years later a need for *exactly* that come along and the wheel (more expensively) reinvented instead of going back to the past.

One thing I recall was a machine for building triangular girders from rolls of flat metal. It folded strips for the corners then wrapped another round and round at an angle. Don't recall if the article mentioned how the strips were bonded together. It was successfully tested on the ground but since NASA was the only space game in town at the time... The things it could make possible to do for space stations but it's sitting in the closet of 'forgotten' ideas.

Should be possible to simulate in KSP by doing a generated triangular beam with a texture and setting the 'extruder' with a variable amount of metal strip, and the ability to push out a specified amount of girder, cut it off and repeat until it runs out of metal. Think of attaching them to the sides of a module and having the extruder push itself out so once it's done it can be moved to another location to attach and push out more girder.

[DerekL1963]

While NASA didn't invent much in the space race, it did create a need for those new technologies. Space travel is the most complicated, technically challenging thing the human race does, and space missions require the best results possible, not settling for "good enough". When the technologies mature, like a guidance computer that can fit inside a spacecraft, or polarising helmet visors, or cordless power tools, people in businesses around the world sees the commercial value, and adopt the technology.

Well, lets see... NASA didn't invent or mature guidance computers that can fit inside a spacecraft, that was the DoD. Polarizing helmet visors came from the work of a lot of people (including the DoD who built them into pilots helmets and bomber windscreens in the early 60's). Battery powered handheld tools go back at *least* to the 50's (that's how old the battery powered pair of fabric cutters my mom had were).... Um, what was your point again?

The key is that the technology had to mature. Usually, they're only at a conceptual stage, gathering little interest and seeming to many to be "not practical". Then NASA comes along, looking for some enabling tech to make their mission possible, and starts handing out the contracts.

That's the spin that NASA has put on the matter for fifty odd years. There's some truth to it, but there's also a whole bunch of credit grabbing and no little truth stretching.

[Drunkrobot]

Well, lets see... NASA didn't invent or mature guidance computers that can fit inside a spacecraft, that was the DoD. Polarizing helmet visors came from the work of a lot of people (including the DoD who built them into pilots helmets and bomber windscreens in the early 60's). Battery powered handheld tools go back at *least* to the 50's (that's how old the battery powered pair of fabric cutters my mom had were).... Um, what was your point again?

That's the spin that NASA has put on the matter for fifty odd years. There's some truth to it, but there's also a whole bunch of credit grabbing and no little truth stretching.

I suppose you have me beat on that one. I really should've looked this up before stating it.

I can see that my post could be view as exaggerated-it is-so let me shamelessly save face by revising it.

NASA could be seen as a contractor of good ideas. It is set a goal, and figures out what it would need to accomplish that goal. This translates into a long list of items with certain specifications. That list could be split into three-stuff NASA already has, stuff NASA doesn't have, but does exist, and stuff NASA has, and doesn't exist. NASA wants everything to be in list 1 before it launches the mission. Going from List 2 to List 1 is basic enough, NASA buys the item, maybe with a few modifications (Electronics must run on AA batteries, for example). List 3 is more difficult. Take the cameras the Apollo astronauts used on the Moon. While the principles of photography was established by the early 1960s, a camera that could be used by a man in a bulky spacesuit, in a vacuum, did not exist. NASA asked Hasselblad to create camera which could be used in those conditions. Hasselblad worked out the technical issues themselves, and gave NASA the cameras.

This relationship was beneficial to both parties. NASA got their amazing photos, obviously, but making the Moon cameras made better commercial cameras possible, either by directly influencing manufacturing processes used by Hasselblad (I don't claim to have an intricate knowledge of film camera design philosophy before and after 1963-1972, but it is common sense to assume that "outside the box" thinking came often be superior to the convention) or by Hasselblad having more money to send to R&D, both through the contract money, and the "our cameras are used by frickin' NASA" selling point.

[Galane]

...and stuff NASA has, and doesn't exist.

Also known as Area 51.

[Holo]

Also known as Area 51.

From their post, it's making me imagine a large warehouse full of closely guarded and constantly observed top secret cameras