Apollo Discussions => The Reality of Apollo => Topic started by: OhPulease on June 07, 2019, 04:17:13 PM

Title: Apollo AGC
Post by: OhPulease on June 07, 2019, 04:17:13 PM
Now just asking questions but...

O.K. Joke over.

I have a question that maybe some of you guys can point me to:

I am interested in the Apollo AGC and would request some information.

I have done some research but feel I am getting a bit lost, so here I am so far:

1. I know Colossus was for the CM.

2, I know Luminary was for the LM.

3. I have downloaded various virtual AGC software.

4. I have the Burkey source.

My problem is I keep coming across different versions of the software i.e. Aurura, Zerlina etc.

There must be a timeline for the creation of this software. Can anyone point me to a list of this timeline.

Hope someone can help and thanks.
Title: Re: Apollo AGC
Post by: ajv on June 08, 2019, 12:36:36 AM
The people at virtual AGC have some of timelines on their pages:

The LUMINARY memos look quite interesting. I hadn't seen these before today

Off-topic: there's an interesting (pre-flight) memo called "How to Land Beside Surveyor 3 on Apollo 12". And it refers to a Tindall-gram "How to land next to a Surveyor - a short novel for do-it-yourselfers". http://tindallgrams.net/69-PA-T-114A
If only there was a thread about Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3.

Thanks, for the question because I started looking around for stuff on their site and checked out the LM Pad loads which gave me the answer for an issue I had in another thread - the value of DELQFIX for the various missions.
Title: Re: Apollo AGC
Post by: OhPulease on June 08, 2019, 04:53:03 AM
Thanks ajv. That pretty much nails it. I wouldn't mind but I downloaded the virtual AGC but managed to miss these pages. Can only think I was a bit blinkered to look further.

As far as the Surveyor issue, I was daft enough to read the UM pages and lost too much malt scotch sprayed over my monitor at a certain persons views on the matter (don't want to mention names, he might consult his lawyer :-X I would then have to fall back on the Arkell v Pressdram defence).

Thanks again.