To the moon on a pocket calculator

Henry Spencer wrote:
Rusty Barton wrote:
Hewlett-Packard pocket calculators are no strangers to adventure. They
have served high upon the rugged slopes of Mt. Everest; at the LeMans,
France, professional auto races; at the navigator's station of the
sailboat "Courageous" the successful America's Cup defender; and in
the cockpits of Powder Puff Derby aircraft race contestants.

Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.

I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?

If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke )

In article ,
Sam Seiber wrote:
started appearing circa 1975, and I believe the first issue of Byte hit
the stands in 1976.

I am NOT looking for an ICH T-Shirt, but IIRC, Byte issue number one
was dated September 1975. But you did say "hit the stands"...

Also, I said "I believe", indicating that I wasn't certain! I couldn't
remember the timing, so I was calculating back from the one issue I still
happen to have, but the early volume numbering may have been messed up
somehow.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

In article ,
Matthew F Funke wrote:
Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.

I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?

I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
it was still a rumor. The fact that www.hp.com's calculator page is still
a broken link (whether you attempt to reach it directly or via their
handhelds page) is not encouraging.

If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?

Already issued and already discontinued, actually -- HP has not actually
manufactured high-end calculators for years, as I understand it. I tried
a 49G but wasn't entirely pleased with it. Some good stuff, some bad
stuff. Some nice new functionality, but I was not happy with the new
package, and it did not help that the one I tried seemed to be a bit
flaky, or that the manual had gone downhill badly.

(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)

I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
picked up a 48GX as a spare.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

Bob Tenney wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:32:28 -0600, Sam Seiber
wrote:


Yep. I built my Altair 8800 the summer of '75.

I don't suppose you kept it,did you? There's a legend going around
that _somebody_ did.


Yeppers, I still have it around. A few years ago I tried to
fire it up. I have a problem with the status latch. I replaced
it, but still not getting the status latched. Some day I
might get around to getting it working. But I still have it.
No, it is not for sale!

Sam Seiber

In article ,
Doug... wrote:
Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.

Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.

The Apollo computer was perfectly adequate for on-board navigation. This
was tested on Apollo 8, it worked. (When the time came for LOI, they used
the ground numbers only because it said so in the flight plan and leaving
it that way was simpler -- the on-board numbers were so close that nobody
could actually tell which was better.)

However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.

References? The info I have (e.g., the Apollo GNC-history paper in the
AAS Science&Technology series vol. 43) says that full on-board abort
capability remained throughout. The main on-board capability that was
sacrificed due to memory shortage was the ability to fly a nominal mission
including landing -- that is, the non-abort case -- without ground help.
That capability had been given a high priority in the original specs, but
was no longer seen as particularly important.

So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.

Not really, even setting aside the above. It would not have been hard to
have given the Apollo computer more memory, had the need been foreseen far
enough ahead to budget resources for it. This was not a technology
limitation, just a mistake in implementation.

(In fact, the Apollo computer's memory *did* get enlarged once, during the
Block I - Block II transition, but not by enough.)
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

Henry Spencer wrote:
Matthew F Funke wrote:
Alas for the days when HP made the world's finest calculators and
everyone knew it... How the mighty have fallen.

I'm curious as to what you base your opinion on when it comes to
calculators, Henry. Do you think the HP49G+ -- due out next month -- is
an equal or inferior calculator to others on the market? If so, why?

I reserve judgement on the 49G+ until it actually appears -- last I heard,
it was still a rumor. The fact that www.hp.com's calculator page is still
a broken link (whether you attempt to reach it directly or via their
handhelds page) is not encouraging.

I'd heard a number of rumors that HP was completely doing away with
their calculator business, and was somewhat saddened by that news. The
maintainer of http://www.hpcalc.org, Eric Rechlin, maintains that he's
heard from half a dozen sources (though I haven't asked what those sources
are) that HP is going to create a 49G+, a 48GII, and a 17BII+ in the same
timeframe (August or September 2003). HP itself is preparing for a 2003
calculator expansion, according to their own website:
http://www.hp.com/calculators/news/

Unfortunately, they don't mention the 49G+ directly, which I would
think would be big news. -=shrug=- If anything, I miss their old
manuals; if their environmental initiative is still underway, I expect
that the manual for the 49G+ will be as minimalist as that for the 49G
(which received a lot of complaints).

If it helps, hpcalc.org has a link to the Douglas Stewart Company's
order form, and *they* seem ready to sell 49G+ models in August...

If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?

Already issued and already discontinued, actually -- HP has not actually
manufactured high-end calculators for years, as I understand it. I tried
a 49G but wasn't entirely pleased with it. Some good stuff, some bad
stuff. Some nice new functionality, but I was not happy with the new
package, and it did not help that the one I tried seemed to be a bit
flaky, or that the manual had gone downhill badly.

I'd heard that they did some *major* downsizing of the calculator
departments, including firing a great number of programmers and designers
(which I generally received as Bad News). As you mention, the latest
calculator they *did* issue was the 49G, released in 1999... and I'd
certainly have expected to have seen something before now if they fully
intended to keep up their calculator line all along.

The package also didn't look as timeless -- I'll agree with that.
(My first thought was that it looked disconcertingly iMac-like.) And it's
good to see that you liked the old manuals, too.

(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)

I was pleased to discover that (a) www.fixthatcalc.com could fix my old
48SX, which I am now happily using again, and (b) www.samsoncables.com
still sells the 48G+ and 48GX (and the 49G also) from old stock, so I
picked up a 48GX as a spare.

I took advantage of an old EduCalc deal where I could trade in my
48SX toward a 48GX. I've been using that happily for years. Of course,
if and when a 49G+ comes out, I'd want that desperately.
--
-- With Best Regards,
Matthew Funke )

Mary Shafer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), (Matthew
F Funke) wrote:


If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)


I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
on computers are good enough.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
feel right like the old HP.

Brett

"Brett Buck" wrote in message
...
Maybe I'm just old-fashioned (now that I'm in my 40's), but it just
doesn't seem the same. I get very frustrated with computer calculator
emulators - even the HP48GX emulator, that even looks right. I just seem
to think better while hitting real keys - or more accurately, keys that
feel right like the old HP.

Sorta like the old IBM keyboards. Sure, other keyboards have the same keys,
but not the same click.

And you can use the old keyboards as lethal weapons if need be.



Brett

In article , says...
In article ,
Doug... wrote:
Because faster computers do very little to solve the engineering problems
of spaceflight. Computing power was not a major limitation on Apollo.

Well -- yes and no. Computing power was not an issue the way Apollo was
flown, and since there were never any major communication problems, it
was fine to have the ground calculate all the burns and trajectories.

The Apollo computer was perfectly adequate for on-board navigation. This
was tested on Apollo 8, it worked. (When the time came for LOI, they used
the ground numbers only because it said so in the flight plan and leaving
it that way was simpler -- the on-board numbers were so close that nobody
could actually tell which was better.)

However, there *was* a program called RTE (Return to Earth) that was
developed for Apollo and ultimately removed because there simply was not
room in memory for it and for the other programs needed. That program
would, indeed, have allowed a crew to calculate its own trajectory and
burns to return to earth at any point during the mission, from five
minutes after TLI through lunar orbit through post-TEI.

References? The info I have (e.g., the Apollo GNC-history paper in the
AAS Science&Technology series vol. 43) says that full on-board abort
capability remained throughout. The main on-board capability that was
sacrificed due to memory shortage was the ability to fly a nominal mission
including landing -- that is, the non-abort case -- without ground help.
That capability had been given a high priority in the original specs, but
was no longer seen as particularly important.

Damn -- this is something that I read sometime in the last 30 years or
so. I am positive of what I read -- it described the process of
developing the RTE program, the memory constraints that led to the
decision to fly without it, and the decision to instead rely upon
frequently updated abort pads that were read up to the crew at regular
intervals. This was discussed in the case of loss of communication
combined with other problems requiring a mission abort.

It is factual that the procedures for lunar flights included frequently
updated pads for upcoming preplanned abort windows, so that part of the
story is provable. Now I just have to a ****load of research to find the
documentation of the decision-making process about which I read sometime
in the last 30 years...

So, there *was* some capability that was originally desired for Apollo
that couldn't be provided because of limitations in computing power.

Not really, even setting aside the above. It would not have been hard to
have given the Apollo computer more memory, had the need been foreseen far
enough ahead to budget resources for it. This was not a technology
limitation, just a mistake in implementation.

(In fact, the Apollo computer's memory *did* get enlarged once, during the
Block I - Block II transition, but not by enough.)

Oh, agreed. As I said (or at least implied), it wasn't a calculational
constraint, it was a memory constraint. It wouldn't have been all that
difficult to add enough memory to allow the full RTE program, it was more
a matter of configuration and weight control, IIRC. My memory of the
account I read said that the final decision about the RTE program was
made sometime in mid- to late-1968, during planning for Apollo 8.

And, you'll recall that not *all* Apollo maneuvers were based on ground
numbers. Some maneuvers, especially LM braking during the final phase of
the rendezvous, were based on numbers generated by the onboard computers
tied into the rendezvous radar and VHF ranging systems. And the computer
systems on the LM and CSM were (at least supposedly) completely capable
of handling a lunar liftoff and rendezvous without comm. So there was
indeed an autonomous navigation capability.

--

It's not the pace of life I mind; | Doug Van Dorn
it's the sudden stop at the end... |

Mary Shafer wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC), (Matthew
F Funke) wrote:


If you can't get specs on the 49G+, how about the already-issued 49G?
(I'm a happy 48GX user, but would like to stay abreast of advances in
calculator technology.)


I love my 48GX, but a lot of folks think that the calculator utilities
on computers are good enough.

Mary



I looked at the 49G. Looked like a huge step back.. I ended up
ordering another 48GX from backstock to replace the one I lost.
Maybe I just missed it in the docs and on the keypad, but I
could not find a unit conversion library, nor did it have that
cool equation library that was on the 48GX..