Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

forrestheller.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 210 posts

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#31

Post by ghaff »

jedberg wrote: post #12

And despite the fact that a wall charger has more compute power than the Saturn V, we can't actually go to the moon today. We've actually lost the ability to go. No one understands how the engines on the Saturn V work anymore. It would take years to tear them apart and analyze them, and most of the original engineers are dead. And the guidance systems would have to be built back up from scratch. Kind of sad if you th…

>No one understands how the engines on the Saturn V work anymore.

That's not really true [1]. Although the project is dead AFAIK a fair bit of work went into reviving the F-1 engine in the early 2010s.

>And the guidance systems would have to be built back up from scratch.

As with many things, you can't easily replicate complex old artifacts because you don't even have the tools to make the tools to make the tools... No, we couldn't build an Apollo Guidance Computer today. I doubt you could easily get things like rope core memory or just about any of the components. But you wouldn't want to anyway. (The guidance computer would probably be the least of your challenges; this is a pretty well-understood technology and the company that made it is even still around.)

[1] https://www.thespacereview.com/article/3724/1

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#32

Post by xkemp »

dreamlayers wrote: post #11

I find it a bit a bit scary that a microcontroller controls charger voltage. There might be a risk of power glitches or bugs causing output voltages which destroy devices.

This somewhat legendary teardown of an Apple charger is a fun read: http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-...

Basically, they seem to do a pretty good job isolating high- and low-voltage circuits. As far as I understand it, it is air-gapped, and physically impossible to induce dangerously high voltage on the device side without some mechanical failure that bridges the gap.

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#33

Post by Spooky23 »

cnst wrote: post #8
pinewurst wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither do pacemakers. God forbid RMS ever needs an arrhythmia corrected...

But is updating the firmware a normal function of pacemakers? He makes a distinction on the update-firmware level — if the microwave has no such functionality, then he does not consider it a computer. Look for "microwave" at http://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html : > As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that cas…

I think so. A relative has a similar device with remote monitoring, and it had to be re-swizzled when they switched services.

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#34

Post by 8note »

xkemp wrote: post #32
dreamlayers wrote: post #11

I find it a bit a bit scary that a microcontroller controls charger voltage. There might be a risk of power glitches or bugs causing output voltages which destroy devices.

This somewhat legendary teardown of an Apple charger is a fun read: http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-... Basically, they seem to do a pretty good job isolating high- and low-voltage circuits. As far as I understand it, it is air-gapped, and physically impossible to induce dangerously high voltage on the device side without some mechanical failure that bridges the gap.

a USB pd charger could try to put out 18v to a device that's expecting 5v though, and that can still burn out the device

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#35

Post by deadbunny »

jedberg wrote: post #12

And despite the fact that a wall charger has more compute power than the Saturn V, we can't actually go to the moon today. We've actually lost the ability to go. No one understands how the engines on the Saturn V work anymore. It would take years to tear them apart and analyze them, and most of the original engineers are dead. And the guidance systems would have to be built back up from scratch. Kind of sad if you th…

> we can't actually go to the moon today.

On the same tech we did 50 years ago.

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#36

Post by xkemp »

jedberg wrote: post #12

And despite the fact that a wall charger has more compute power than the Saturn V, we can't actually go to the moon today. We've actually lost the ability to go. No one understands how the engines on the Saturn V work anymore. It would take years to tear them apart and analyze them, and most of the original engineers are dead. And the guidance systems would have to be built back up from scratch. Kind of sad if you th…

We could easily go to the moon. It's just a completely useless exercise to do so, unless you can find a way to taunt China into another round of the space race.

The scientific case for the moon was always weak, and most anything they could come up with has been done. Just look at the useless lets-grow-salad-in-space-oh-look-its-just-salad timesinks the ISS has been busying themselves with.

So, in a way we've become much smarter. And SpaceX, a commercial outfit with both solid financials, a good track record on safety, and rather unlimited ambition is probably the most exciting thing happening since the first moon landing.

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#37

Post by xkemp »

8note wrote: post #34
xkemp wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This somewhat legendary teardown of an Apple charger is a fun read: http://www.righto.com/2012/05/apple-iphone-charger-teardown-... Basically, they seem to do a pretty good job isolating high- and low-voltage circuits. As far as I understand it, it is air-gapped, and physically impossible to induce dangerously high voltage on the device side without some mechanical failure that bridges the gap.

a USB pd charger could try to put out 18v to a device that's expecting 5v though, and that can still burn out the device

Yes, of course. I was thinking of the risk of death and injury, not broken gadgets. Because it is somewhat disconcerting to think how often we/babies touch/stick in our mouth a cable with an almost direct connection to the grid.

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#38

Post by jonplackett »

informatimago wrote: post #2

And that's nothing. Wait for AI in power sockets! For now, they only have simple processors in USB-C charger, but soon there will be more intelligence in there, than you can imagine! :-)

I think this is the thing we'll be looking back on like this.

AI in EVERYTHING. because it'll be so cheap in 20 years.

Like maybe those useless automatic taps or hand dryers will finally actually know if hands are under them properly because they'll have the equivalent of a modern day supercomputer of AI power trying to figure it out.

Re: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. USB-C Chargers

#39

Post by oldandcold »

gok wrote: post #22

Yeah modern microcontrollers are probably less efficiently used than they could be, but the AGC essentially crashed twice during the lunar landing because it didn't have enough compute available.

It didn't crash. It behaved as designed. Too much work to do, and the scheduler had to deal with priority problems.
Post reply on HN