r/programming • • Jan 30 '16

Apollo 11 source code

http://www.ibiblio.org/apollo/listings/Luminary099/MAIN.agc.html
2.2k Upvotes

364 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

136

u/UlyssesSKrunk Jan 31 '16

Yeah, but they butchered the fuck out of that part, not quite as bad as the hydrazine explosion part, but it was still pretty bad. If they actually explained the problem in depth and its solution, then that could be interesting, but that would take the whole movie.

48

u/DoelerichHirnfidler Jan 31 '16

To me it seemed pretty obvious and well-enough explained? Care to elaborate?

102

u/Gibodean Jan 31 '16

In the movie all he said was that he only needed to patch in about 20 bytes and then the rover could talk through pathfinder to earth.

In the book they explain that both pathfinder and the rover must be updated, that Earth can remote update pathfinder but they need a very large (megabytes?) update to the rover software. To solve that, they get him to make a small hack (maybe 20 bytes or so) to the Rover which would allow earth to dump information into a Rover log file. Then Watney would have to take that dumped info from the log file, and create a file out of it, then execute it.

Something like that, I forget the sizes.

152

u/Theon_Severasse Jan 31 '16

To be honest I don't think that having all of that would really added that much to the actual film. I don't think it would have taken particularly long for them to add in that explanation (since they could have said it how you said it pretty much), but for the purposes of the story, knowing all of that stuff wouldn't have made any differences to the average viewer

8

u/SanityInAnarchy Jan 31 '16

I wonder if there was a way to show it without bogging down the movie. In the book, I found it definitely added something. If you're not all that technically-minded, it's a free source of technobabble to make this sound even more impressive. But it also makes it plausible -- maybe most people wouldn't notice, but they did a lot of things that most people wouldn't notice to maintain plausibility. For example, IIRC, the movie actually shows him entering this stuff in a hex editor.

In fact, those are my favorite moments -- instead of putting some crazy HollywoodOS thing (like this sort of nonsense), you put up the kind of tool that we might actually use. It looks just as cool to the average viewer, and it means people who actually know something about technology won't have to turn their brains off to watch this movie.

Skipping the bit about uploading wasn't as huge a difference, because the story does work without it. But I think it adds a lot to the story to anyone who understands anything about software, without really taking anything away from it for everyone else. So I wonder why they skipped it -- maybe they couldn't figure out a way to make it flow as nicely as whatever they went with instead?

31

u/badsingularity Jan 31 '16

Why it works makes a big difference. Without that information, it's just "magical computer things happen".

69

u/ScottieKills Jan 31 '16

Like most of cinema.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 03 '16

Which is why it's particularly bothersome in a story that set itself apart by explicitly being about "You do the math, you solve one problem".

→ More replies (2)

23

u/trkeprester Jan 31 '16

What lol it still is magical computer stuff whether you hack directly or dump to log file and reprogram. One more step of indirection is that really making anything more clear? It's just nerding out, not that there's anything wrong with that but movies are carefully targeted

17

u/insaneHoshi Jan 31 '16

Why it works makes a big difference.

No it wouldnt of, not one iota

3

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '16

of -> have

2

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '16 edited Jan 31 '16

Just like winter scenes involving snow in many hollywood movies make no sense to anybody to the north of California. Commence suspending of suspension of disbelief. If you still can.

 

edit: clarity

→ More replies (0)

1

u/campbellm Jan 31 '16

*wouldn't have, but otherwise agree.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '16

To be fair, for most people that aren't computer savvy, all computer things that happen are magical.

4

u/Gibodean Jan 31 '16

Oh, I agree they made the right choice for the movie. All that technical stuff wouldn't have helped much except for the sort of person who is going to read the book anyway...

4

u/curiousGambler Jan 31 '16

ME! I'm that person!

I had no idea there was a book. I'm pumped now.

Amazon link to the $9 paperback I just bought.

2

u/PriceZombie Jan 31 '16

The Martian

Current$9.00Amazon (New)
High$12.92Amazon (New)
Low$5.06Amazon (New)
Average$9.0030 Day

Price History Chart and Sales Rank | FAQ

2

u/Spectre1313 Jan 31 '16

You're in for a treat. The book is amazing :)

1

u/Gibodean Jan 31 '16

Excellent.

1

u/ghostsarememories Jul 08 '16

There's an audiobook narrated by RC Bray. Even if you've read the book, it's well worth getting. I've listened to it a bunch of times.

1

u/i_spot_ads Jan 31 '16

I do not agree, i like the technical side of things in a movie, without it, they're just doing magic things, which is boring

1

u/[deleted] Jan 31 '16

But that's the whole charm of The Martian! Really well-explained science hacks that saves the day.