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

Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

buzzsprout.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–48 of 48 posts

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#41

Post by ASalazarMX »

bitwize wrote: post #27
theamk wrote: post #3

TL/DL: yes, it does, and by significant amount Key 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 t…

Here's something to bake your noodle: 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

"it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#42

Post by monocasa »

circuit10 wrote: post #40
monocasa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they run javacard, which is a far cry from normal java or even jme. No char, double, float or long types. No arrays with more than one dimension. New creates persistent objects in something like flash with no runtime garbage collection. No String, and in fact most of java.lang.* is missing, etc.

With all those limitations I wonder why they didn’t just use something like C… I guess the portability of bytecode? A modern version might use WebAssembly instead which feels more suited as it’s much lower level (at least without the modern GC extensions)

It does still have object level memory safety, so it has that going for it still more than C or even a wasm based VM would.

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#43

Post by ASalazarMX »

ozim wrote: post #35

That’s the kind of realization like: 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.

Does this mean my 27 tankōbon volumes of Doctor Stone are not the fast track to rebuilding our technological civilization I thought they were?

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#44

Post by readthenotes1 »

ozim wrote: post #35

That’s the kind of realization like: 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.

Your brain is not more powerful than similarly well-fed brains in the middle ages. Most of the well-fed could learn anything you know.

The key fob, likewise, could be programmed to get us to LEO and probably run Doom at the same time

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#45

Post by ninalanyon »

ozim wrote: post #35

That’s the kind of realization like: 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.

If you ever get back there make sure to take every 1930s DIY book you can find. They have everything from legal advice to how to make a power rectifier from scratch as well as how batteries and radios work along with instructions for building them from valves. If you can make a vacuum pump it's not ever such a stretch to make thermionic valves (tubes for left-pondians). You could even make something like Konrad Zuse's computers with the technology that is already available.

The first generation won't be as good as the Apollo Guidance Computer though.

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#46

Post by ASalazarMX »

jeffbee wrote: post #39
coupdejarnac wrote: post #12

Low cost ARM M series microcontrollers are ubiquitous, and they're all immensely more powerful than the lunar lander computer.

Wireless embedded smartcards from 30 years ago were more powerful than the Apollo guidance computer. It's not a useful benchmark.

Considering Starship's console has big touch screens, a comparison with today's computers would be fairer, but less interesting.

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#47

Post by bitwize »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #41
bitwize wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's something to bake your noodle: 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

"it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." -- Abraham Maslow

Apple has an RTOS, called RTKit, that it uses for certain devices that have to hit ridiculously tight timing windows, or which don't have enough resources to support a full xnu kernel, such as the AirPods and Apple Pencil.

Re: Does my key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander?

#48

Post by rstuart4133 »

1970-01-01 wrote: post #13

Isn't the real challenge finding anything made today that has less compute power than the lander? I challenge you to find that.

Feast your eyes on this: https://cpldcpu.com/2019/08/12/the-terrible-3-cent-mcu/

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!

Post reply on HN