The article is technically correct in that the code has been open-sourced and published, except it happened in 2016, so I’m guessing the author just decided to ride the Artemis hype.
the crucial 30 lines of assembly for calculating Apollo 11’s navigation trajectories.
I was never skeptical we went to the moon until now.
How the hell can you do all that in 30 lines?!?
Import MoonPy MoonPy.LandOnMoon() while MoonPy.OnMoon: print("john madden")
Adding that the Apollo 11 soft isn’t much more complex as the one of an current pocket calculator, I doubt that it can even run DOOM. NASA anyway has a huge OpenSource catalogue, all their soft used is OpenSource, despite some with restricted licenses only for official uses. Same for other Space agencies, eg. from the ESA. Good sources for astronomic fans.
Wait, our own space program? Is that a thing we’re supposed to have?
See ya losers I’m going to moon \s
/s everywhere making the jokes less funny, its funny to see people not getting the jokes anyway.
Ah, but it’s also funny to see people whine about /s anytime it’s used. It’s quite the conundrum.
Mark my words, someone’s going to make a video game with 100% historical accuracy with this.
Reentry is pretty darn close to 100% realistic
https://store.steampowered.com/app/882140/Reentry__A_Space_Flight_Simulator/
Ooh, this looks great!
It will be vibecoded with six-fingered physics
You can automate control of your craft in KSP with a mod. All you need is to have it send the data to the Apollo computer and then send the output to the craft. It should probably work with the real solar system mod.
Now that I saw this though, I swear I saw this exact video already. Scott Manley or someone may have already done this.
This code was first published 10 years ago, but I haven’t seen any such game yet.
They’ll get round to it. They’re doing the graphics first. They’re currently making individual 3D models of “all the stars”.
“If you want to make a historically accurate moon landing sim, you must first model the universe.” -Carl Sagan
I’m not a computer graphics guy, but I wanna math. Theoretically, if I wanted to make the smallest possible 3d model, I would define it as four interconnected points. Each point has x, y, and z coordinates, so each model takes a theoretical minimum of 12 bytes of storage. Someone who knows computers can correct me if I’m off by a bunch.
The lower estimate is around 100,000,000,000 stars in the Milky Way. That’s only 1.2 terabytes worth of my theoretical minimum 3d model. Doable! But you said all stars. The lower estimate is around 10^22 stars in the universe. That would be 120 zettabytes. That’s only a few orders of magnitude off from the total available worldwide datadata storage!
Edit: I might have thought of a way to define a 3D model in just 2 bytes. You need four points that each have values for x, y, and z. They don’t need 256 possible values for those, they can get by with two each. One bit can store two possible positions, so we can use as little as two bytes to define every point’s position with 4 bits to spare. Behold, a tetrahedron:
0000 0100 1010 1110Each set of four digits defines the x, y, and z coordinates for each point, as well as one extra dimension. You could use those extra four bits however you want. An extra spatial dimension, defining a color, etc. The theoretically smallest possible 3D model. Take the numbers I said up there and divide them by 6. A model for every star in the universe, and it would only take 20 zettabytes.
David Braben did it 1984, in a cave, with a box of scraps
https://ctrl500.com/tech/how-frontier-managed-to-re-create-our-entire-galaxy-in-elite-dangerous/
That’s some damn fine maths, thank you :)
Finally! An expansion pack for Lunar Lander(1979).
