On 2013 Mar 10, at 9:48 PM, Adrian Stoness wrote: I'm inclined to say dream on (for the seller), but then, the "NASA Rope Memory" mentioned a week or so ago went for 1200$, so what do I know. Raytheon NASA Rope Memeory Module B28 Winning bid US $1,234.88 10 bids http://www.ebay.com/itm/Raytheon-NASA-Rope-Memeory-Module-B28-/111020115489…

I'm kinda surprised that didn't go for more.

On 3/10/2013 10:38 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote: You know that was actually an Apollo guidance computer rope memory module right ? I was surprised it only went for $1,200. If someone could find out exactly what it was from I bet you could times by ten what it sold for at least.

On 3/10/2013 11:41 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote: > On 2013 Mar 10, at 10:46 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: >> I'm kinda surprised that didn't go for more. >> > On 2013 Mar 10, at 11:01 PM, mc68010 wrote: >> On 3/10/2013 10:38 PM, Brent Hilpert wrote: >>> .., the "NASA Rope Memory" mentioned a week or so ago went for >>> 1200$, so what do I know. >>> >>> Raytheon NASA Rope Memeory Module B28 >>> >>> Winning bid US $1,234.88 >>> 10 bids >>> >>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Raytheon-NASA-Rope-Memeory-Module-B28-/ >>> 111020115489?nma=true&si=L%252FKVS6tRa6NElBM%252FimfqSWLCRxk% >>> 253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557#ht_1755wt_0 >>> >> You know that was actually an Apollo guidance computer rope >> memory module right ? I was surprised it only went for $1,200. If >> someone could find out exactly what it was from I bet you could >> times by ten what it sold for at least. > > Yes, I realise that was the claim, although I haven't seen it > confirmed. I'm not saying they're wrong, it should be traceable > given the id stamped on it. > > Nonetheless, the selling price kind of surprised me for what is a > fairly undistinguished module (and I'm well aware of what core > rope is, however not many people are). Hypothetically speaking, > were a keypad/display module for the AGC ever to show up on ebay, > it would be another matter - that I would expect to go for big bucks. > > It's just interesting - is all Apollo stuff going this way these > days, or is it just AGC stuff triggering multiple nostalgia > receptors (computers AND Apollo) for a certain set of people (not > trying to be derisive, I could be in that set).

Do you have another reasonable explanation what it might have been ? That is clearly a AGC module to me.

It may not have ever flown to the moon but, there is no mistaking it. Another one google showed me had B21. B28 was probably what program it contained. It would be very cool to get the code off these. It could have been stupid test routines or maybe it was some sort of suicide protocol.

I think a case could be made that these are government property and really were never meant to be sold. If NASA decided they wanted them back I imagine they could be taken back. So far they aren't up to Apollo computing artifacts yet.

mc68010 wrote: I don't think a case can be made for that without digging up actual records. At this point the government would need to prove that it is their property.

Irrelevant. The government buys billions of dollars of stuff every year that is "never meant to be sold", and eventually it all gets sold, unless it's classified, in which case it is declassified then sold or scrapped. (Sometimes after declassification there's no value other than as recyclable materials.)

Even if it could be shown that they didn't explicitly intend to sell it, they would also have to show that it wasn't abandoned, since abandoning property with no demonstrable intent to recover it forfeits ownership. Not likely. NASA surplused by public auction an incredible amount of stuff from the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. There's no reason to believe that this wasn't legitimately surplused.

On 3/11/2013 10:29 PM, Eric Smith wrote: It does sort of say NASA on it. It is actually right on it.

I have more than one friend with stuff they shouldn't have. Stuff they bought at auction. It is more bureaucratic error. Classified and some even up to the nuclear level. It slips through all the time.

That was by mistake.

What is really amazing is how sloppy the bookkeeping during the Apollo program was. They were in such a hurry they just didn't care.

On 2013 Mar 10, at 10:46 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: ... is all Apollo stuff going this way these days, or is it just AGC stuff triggering multiple nostalgia receptors

On 2013 Mar 11, at 5:59 AM, Toby Thain wrote: Thanks, that's really informative and helpful.

>>> They're not making it any more. >>> (They're not making moon trips any more either.) >> Thanks, that's really informative and helpful. > They also have stopped giving out free Moon Rocks too.

No, that's probably still happening.

They're not making it any more. (They're not making moon trips any more either.)

On 2013 Mar 11, at 3:29 PM, Fred Cisin wrote: Seeing as how we're straying into Apollo hoax territory, while investigating this thread I ran across this: http://www.aulis.com/pascal.htm Following on Margaret Atwoods questioning of the Apollo missions on the basis they didn't have adequate computers, this time some guy has done an 'analysis' (term used verrrry loosely) of the AGC, based on available documents, and declares that the AGC could never have worked. The guy can make a nice web article with graphics and seems to have a rudimentary knowledge of electronics (from web page: "[author] is a computer engineer specialising in real-time systems"). He can identify diode and transistor symbols and seems to know how these components are 'supposed' to work, but all his points I examined display a basic misunderstanding of electronics and the whole thing is utterly incompetent. If you actually do have an understanding of electronics you can read the article for a good laugh. (Oh, what the hell. Better expressed in the colloquial: Despite his supposed technical background, the guy is a moron who doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.) Do a little web surfing/research about Apollo and inevitably one ends up at yet another Apollo-moon-landing-hoax-conspiracy site. And of course these sites present themselves as being in the spirit of "freethinking", "thinking differently", "questioning the status quo", or whatever. Which are good things - when they are applied with some competence and aren't just an expression of arrogance and ignorance.

Most of our problems are document archaeology and reverse-engineering to fill holes created by missing or lost documents. Almost none of the mission control documentation was kept, we haven't found any of the ground software, and the Saturn flight software seems to have been lost.

On Mar 12, 2013, at 8:05 AM, William Donzelli <wdonzelli at gmail.com> wrote: I don't know of any organized document-saving organization, but a lot of stuff goes through NARA. The "we" I refer to is the group working on NASSP. We don't have any kind of public document repository or anything like that, we just collect what we need to build the simulator. That does sound like something that should be saved, but I have no idea how you would go about doing it.

I thinking, we've just about all seen someone use some plastic wrap to read a stuborn creadit card. First, what is the principle behind making it work? Is it possible that something similar can be used while trying to recover old floppies that may have had some surface damage?

On 03/11/2013 05:55 PM, Dave McGuire wrote: Most of what I've read seems to say that it lowers the signal level a bit and reduces some extraneous noise in the signal: http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/lick-plastic-bag-credit- card-secrets-1273.php

But the bit density on a credit card is very low in comparison to a floppy disk. I imagine that increasing the head-media separation to the thickness of a bit of cling wrap would most likely make the disk harder to read.

Just a PLL...doing self-clocking in that manner is pretty easy.

Yes, I realise that was the claim, although I haven't seen it confirmed. I'm not saying they're wrong, it should be traceable given the id stamped on it.

Due to the interest in the AGC over the past decade, I believe a lot of those records have been found, if it couldn't be matched by part number to an existing AGC. It was said in one ref to be from a Block 1 model though, which might make it more difficult to affirm.

On 03/10/2013 09:48 PM, Adrian Stoness wrote: One of Sellam's units, I believe.

Seeing this getting sold on eBay just makes me sick. Sigh.

* On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:25:23AM -0600, Richard <legalize at xmission.com> wrote: Of course that's not at all what I meant. I'm just sad to see a collection that took so much time and effort to put together get picked apart like this. That's all. -Seth