Skip to main content

Man on the Moon


The third episode of Moon Machines, titled Navigation Computer tells us all about the process of building the Apollo Guidance Computer. It amazes me the amount of work that goes into a project of this size, and it has always surprised me how many people don't care about space travel, or even the amount of people who, despite seeing all the people involved and all the hard work, still deny the moon landing ever happened. 

I also found it really interesting how seemingly unorganized MIT's software team was while working on this project. This isn't meant as a jab at them, but the fact that one of today's most prestigious institutions didn't have a well-defined plan speaks of how much project management and software development in general have evolved in such little time. 

However, it's also funny to see how little things have changed in that regard, in the sense that even today, the amount of work that goes into developing software is grossly underestimated (even by ourselves), and very often we end up working to reach our goal without really knowing how to get there. On that note, although some of the testimonials on this regard were a little bit sad, it was inspiring to see what can be achieved when so many passionate people work towards the same goal. 

Putting aside the software part of the video, I've always been interested in space travel, and no matter how many times I see or read about it, the topic is always as breathtaking as the first time. Seeing what we were able to achieve back then, how much every aspect of the technology used has evolved today, and today's efforts to make space travel a more common occurrence, I can't help but be hopeful that there will be many more advancements happening soon, and I personally can't wait to see what comes next!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is Design Dead?

 This week, we had to read Is Design Dead? by Martin Fowler. Just by reading the title, the thought of agile methodologies popped into my head, since they do involve design, just not as much as we're accustomed to. And not too surprisingly, Fowler reached a similar conclusion: design is NOT dead, it has just evolved along with us to keep up with today's standards.  Before, design was used to make sure that you knew everything you needed to get done, and it let you find any flaws in your plan beforehand. It was meant as an all-encapsulating process that all future code will be based on. Today, it has maintained its role as a guide, as to not make the developer feel totally lost, but with today's fast-paced work environment and ever-changing requirements, with the help of methodologies such as Extreme Programming, it has evolved to become more dynamic and easier to change.  For my personal opinion, I've had experiences (both academic and professional) where a bit of desig
Post a Comment
Read more

SOLID

 This week, we read a very straight-forward chapter by Edward Guiness of the book Ace the Programming Interview: 160 Questions and Answers for Success. It very quickly explains the SOLID principles, which are widely-known principles applied to object-oriented programming that have to do with minimizing dependencies between classes. I won't explain what each principle consists of (since it's very easy to find ), but I will share my general thoughts about them.  I still remember when I first started university, my code consisted of one very long python file that you could very easily read from top to bottom; the concept of functions was still foreign to me, and when we started using them, we would split up all of our code into two or three functions and that was that. Since then, we've been introduced to many different ways to make code cleaner and easier to read, and one that's been repeated often is the Single Responsibility Principle, which I agree is very useful in or
Post a Comment
Read more

Why is an architect?

  This week's (very short) article, Who Needs an Architect?, Martin Fowler explains to us the different definitions of architects that exist in the software world. The first and most common definition, which Fowler disagrees with, says that an architect is (s)he who helps identify what the most important parts of a project are, in order to give it structure. However, it is also mentioned that these parts are usually the most important because they are the hardest to change, so an architect's job should also include reducing the amount of these parts. Following the logic, by this definition, an architect's job is to reduce the amount of architecture.  The second proposed definition, which I also think I agree with, is that an architect's role is more like a guide's. His purpose is to help the team become better by using his expertise, and communicating with as much of the team as possible in order to remove their blocks. I think the word architect  still fulfills thi
Post a Comment
Read more