Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar Lander? In this episode of Runtime Arguments that just dropped today, Wolf and I dive into that question and we reveal some information that might surprise you. We had a lot of fun doing the research and we hope you enjoy it. Find it wherever you get your podcasts. And, if you enjoy it, please tell all of your friends. We'd really appreciate it.
Apollo Guidance Computer was 2MHz, ~72 KB ROM, ~4 KB RAM
The comparison might be up to 10x different due to more efficient architecture and different MIPS/MHz ratio, but it does not change much, since the differences are so dramatic.
(This is based on links in the podcast description, which I assume what they talked about. Those pretty new keyfobs, older ones might have something like nRF24LE01, which is only 16 MHz, 18 KB Flash, 1KB RAM)
I guess even a disposable vape has more computing power than the Lunar lander. (I don't know if that's more or less ridiculous than a key fob, but at least a key is not so disposable.)
The HT68F001 stands out: 512 words of program flash and 16 bytes of RAM. ... can only be clocked from an internal 32 kHz oscillator. Since each instruction takes 4 cycles to execute, this results in only 8000 instructions per second!
This is actually a good example to consider why a better computing model does relatively little to enable some things. Sure, your fob has more computing complexity; the lander had far more of, well, everything else.
Something akin to: "Right now, you're carrying more computing power than what's on Voyager. And I'm not talking about your phone, I'm talking about your keyfob."
The contactless chip in your credit card is a full computer that powers up via inductive charging when tapped. It then negotiates 2 way public/private key encryption to verify you. These usually run jme which requires a lot more power than the lunar lander.
Another good one is the many little computers on cars such as the TPMS sensor in each tyre valve.
That's a really interesting comparison! But does anyone know if any Apollo lunar lander was specifically notable at the time for the power of compute on board? I feel like the takeaway could be "wow, technology has come so far, the pinnacle of computing in the 60s is bested by this stupid keyfob."
It does make sense to me that automating only the bare essentials could be an intentional choice on a lunar lander. Relying on intense discipline + training of the astronauts combined with dirt-simple automation should hopefully put them in a good spot to resolve issues you couldn't predict earth-side. If you automated too much, the thing that goes wrong could be a bug IN the automation, which is obviously going to be harder to train for.
There's also power savings and weight, which I'm sure were big factors... so I can't imagine the guidance computers were great examples of the most performant compute 60s/70s had to offer.
(Also, not able to listen to the podcast right now, so if that idea gets dispelled during it, disregard me. Just basing this on what I can read over a coffee break.)
If a computing device can’t actually do more useful things tha another computing device, then saying it has more “computing power” is a bit silly.
It’s like measuring national power by population, or saying that ants have “more power” than humans because ants are more numerous, have more legs and can lift more per unit of size. It’s fun to think about for about five seconds before recognizing that “power” is about capability, not abstract numbers.
If I get back to middle ages I will be smartest man on in the world - first question “so how do your mobile phones work actually and can you build one?”
Well great you can compare compute power but can you get to the LEO at least? I don’t think so.
19 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 34.6 ms ] threadKey fob has nRF52840l, 64 MHz ARM, 1024 KB Flash, 256 KB RAM
Apollo Guidance Computer was 2MHz, ~72 KB ROM, ~4 KB RAM
The comparison might be up to 10x different due to more efficient architecture and different MIPS/MHz ratio, but it does not change much, since the differences are so dramatic.
(This is based on links in the podcast description, which I assume what they talked about. Those pretty new keyfobs, older ones might have something like nRF24LE01, which is only 16 MHz, 18 KB Flash, 1KB RAM)
Apple makes Lightning to HDMI dongles that contain 400 MHz Samsung ARM SoCs and 256 MiB of RAM onboard.
They run frickin' Darwin.
There is more power in one of those dongles than there was in the OG iMac, and it runs a cut-down macOS. No cap.
And yes, Doom has been ported: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4XCkeN0XuqA
The HT68F001 stands out: 512 words of program flash and 16 bytes of RAM. ... can only be clocked from an internal 32 kHz oscillator. Since each instruction takes 4 cycles to execute, this results in only 8000 instructions per second!
there's no useful text content on this page
Something akin to: "Right now, you're carrying more computing power than what's on Voyager. And I'm not talking about your phone, I'm talking about your keyfob."
Another good one is the many little computers on cars such as the TPMS sensor in each tyre valve.
It does make sense to me that automating only the bare essentials could be an intentional choice on a lunar lander. Relying on intense discipline + training of the astronauts combined with dirt-simple automation should hopefully put them in a good spot to resolve issues you couldn't predict earth-side. If you automated too much, the thing that goes wrong could be a bug IN the automation, which is obviously going to be harder to train for.
There's also power savings and weight, which I'm sure were big factors... so I can't imagine the guidance computers were great examples of the most performant compute 60s/70s had to offer.
(Also, not able to listen to the podcast right now, so if that idea gets dispelled during it, disregard me. Just basing this on what I can read over a coffee break.)
It’s like measuring national power by population, or saying that ants have “more power” than humans because ants are more numerous, have more legs and can lift more per unit of size. It’s fun to think about for about five seconds before recognizing that “power” is about capability, not abstract numbers.
If I get back to middle ages I will be smartest man on in the world - first question “so how do your mobile phones work actually and can you build one?”
Well great you can compare compute power but can you get to the LEO at least? I don’t think so.