News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NASA Open Sources Apollo 11 Code (2009) by NAFV_P on Thursday April 03, 2014 @12:51PM (#7524107)
> Its popular to dismiss the AGC as simple and uninteresting, but it was a challenging engineering task, and it never once had a failure in flight.

Stating it never failed in flight is jumping the gun a bit, it didn't fly enough times to get a reliable statistic.

Re:NASA Open Sources Apollo 11 Code (2009) by talmand on Thursday April 03, 2014 @02:08PM (#7524771)
I would think it's accurate to state that the system never had a failure in flight if it never had a failure in flight, despite how many times it flew.

If you were to compare it to something else, then how many times it flew becomes important. For example, you can't necessarily say that a 100% success rate over 5 attempts is better than a 95% success rate over 100 attempts.

Re:NASA Open Sources Apollo 11 Code (2009) by spectre256 on Thursday April 03, 2014 @05:03PM (#7526646)
Right. I think I remember Digital Apollo quoting an engineer who estimated, based on their extensive ground testing, that the AGC had a MTBF of about 50,000 hours. That's not particularly good, but considering all the Apollo missions spent only about 1000 hours in space total, it was apparently good enough.