The common wisdom these days is that even if we wanted to get back to the Moon the way we did in the 1960s, we’d never be able to do it. Most of the blame for that usually falls on the loss of institutional knowledge thanks to skilled minds and hands that have been stilled by the passage of time, but the real kicker would be finding replacements for all the parts that we used back then that just aren’t made anymore. A similar problem exists for those seeking to recreate the circuits that graced the pages of the many magazines that catered to electronics hobbyists back in the day.
Take this “Space Age Decimal Computer” reproduction that [Bob Alexander] undertook. Smitten with the circuit after seeing our story about a 1966 article detailing its construction, he decided to roll one of his own. That proved to be far harder than he thought it would be. The original circuit, really little more than an adding machine using a rotary telephone dial as an input device, used neon lamp ring buffers for counting, The trouble is, while NE-2 neon lamps are still made, they aren’t made very precisely. That makes it difficult to build a working ring buffer, which relies on precise on and off voltages. That was even a problem back then; the author suggested buying 100 lamps and carefully characterizing them after aging them in to get the 60 lamps needed.
In the end, [Bob] settled for modifying the circuit while making the build look as close as possible to the original. He managed to track down the exact model of enclosure used in the original. The front panel is populated with a rotary dial just like the original, and the same neon lamps are used too, but as indicators rather than in ring buffers. Behind the scenes, [Bob] relied on 7400-series counters and decoders to make it all work — kudos for sticking with 1970s tech and not taking the easy way out with an Arduino.
The video below goes into more detail on the build and the somewhat kludgy operation of the machine, with a few excellent [Tom Lehrer] references and a nice Cybertruck dunk to boot.
I think a very big problem with ‘getting back to the moon’ ‘like we did’ is WHS (work health and safety). Any sort of risk in the workplace has to be eliminated, or (at least in Australia), the boss ends up in jail.
Rocket scientist: “How about we strap this capsule with three people in it on top of this huge tank of highly explosive rocket fuel?”
Boss: “Yeah, why not. Seems safe to me!”
Go to jail. Do not pass go.
You are aware that they are still “strapping this capsule with three people in it on top of this huge tank of highly explosive rocket fuel” to send people to the ISS, right? That other countries are also sending people to space in the same way?
The thing about doing it ‘like we did’ is that there are better methods for manufacturing, there better materials, and better equipment today. Doing it like they did it in the 1960s would require digging out old methods and backtracking to poor equipment.
Modern companies are meldung the basic science learned in the 1960s with modern technology and materials. They are working towards putting people back on the moon, but as an ongoing operation rather than a “hit and run.” Sort of like how the Antarctic expeditions grew from a mad dash to the South pole to being more or less permanent establishments.
Step 1: build Saturn V rocket.
As far as sitting on explosives go, ejector seats anyone? The problem nowadays is expensive cars that may or may not burst into flames on any given day. Me, I’d like to talk to the boneheaded committee that thought Apollo 1’s pure oxygen atmosphere capsule (pronounced “capsewl” like Captain Kirk) was a good idea.
The problem with Apollo 1 wasn’t the “pure oxygen atmosphere”, but the “pure oxygen atmosphere at a pressure of 1,33 atmospheres during a test” (they overpressurized the capsule to simulate the flex of the metal). When in space, the atmosphere was “pure oxygen at 0,33 atmospheres”, which is not dangerous.
Step 1: build Saturn V rocket.
As far as sitting on explosives go, ejector seats anyone? The problem nowadays is expensive cars that may or may not burst into flames on any given day. Me, I’d like to talk to the boneheaded committee that thought Apollo 1’s pure oxygen atmosphere capsule (pronounced “capsewl” like Captain Kirk) was a good idea.
The idea of lost knowledge – like the idea of the youth being lazier and dumber – will always be with us, because people need to believe in it. When you’re young, progress is exciting because you imagine yourself involved in it, and when you’re old, it’s horrifying because you realise that you weren’t.
The cure is to consider change through the eyes of people who still do find it exciting, and ideally, to still see yourself as a student even when you have grey hair.
But, yes, it is easier to be enthusiastic about technologies in their primitive stage, where working in a garage is still the state of the art.
“The idea of lost knowledge – like the idea of the youth being lazier and dumber – will always be with us, because people need to believe in it. When you’re young, progress is exciting because you imagine yourself involved in it, and when you’re old, it’s horrifying because you realise that you weren’t.”
The sad thing about this is that it isn’t even always true.
It’s not that the old ones couldn’t continue to support the young ones.
A lot of progress is being based on existing knowledge.
Being “young” means to continue to be willing to learn.
Life is a never ending learning process, after all.
“The thing about doing it ‘like we did’ is that there are better methods for manufacturing, there better materials, and better equipment today. Doing it like they did it in the 1960s would require digging out old methods and backtracking to poor equipment.”
Better is a relative term, though.
I’m thinking of airplane manufacturing right now.
Fly-by-wire, carbon vs aluminium, glue vs screws etc.
Modern airplanes aren’t really safe, either.
They’re rather being optimized for cost-saving reasons rather than safety.
A lot of airplanes now have the chance to implode, thanks to “advanced materials”.
Building them with carbon is not far away from using paper! 🥲
Why don’t you tell us what you really think, Fred. You think workers should be injured, permanently disabled, maimed, or killed for their bosses’ profits.
Not for profit, for fun.
Hm. Doing things by heart rather than for money is ethically better, I suppose.
Except if some one is working in the oldest business, maybe.
Most certainly not!
What I’m saying is that even if some-one wanted to do it ‘like we did’, that time has passed and there is no ‘doing it like we did’.
And I agree that ‘strapping people to a tank of explosive’ is still done. But back then the risk test pilots took was significantly greater than test pilots of today – specifically noting that there is still risk (like crossing the road – with or without having your eyes glued to the screen of your phone).
“That proved to be far harder than he thought it would be”
We’ve all been there! Definitely a key feature of a hack haha
Note to self: img tags don’t work…
https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/613XA7G98aL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
“It falls short of being historically accurate in that, you know, it works” :D
I enjoy reading old issues of Popular Electronics to see “how they did it” for the projects. It is fun to imagine how I would build the project today.
Old enough to remember the article just into junior high. If remember right it needed special tight turn on voltage tolerance neons, not the Poly Packs 100 for real cheap.
That’s a wonderful video. Even earlier than that (the early 60’s?) I, being the resident junior high math whiz, was chosen to demonstrate to the Parent-Teacher Association a contraption a fellow had made from a telephone dial, a row of plain old lamp bulbs, and, I presume, a lot of relays inside it. As with the machine in the video, numbers were added with the telephone dial, but were displayed not in base 10 but in binary, introducing the audience to the wonders of computing back when real computers filled a room and cost a fortune.