3 ms·

"have more computing power" Unfortunately that means nothing. That would imply someone with control over an iphone (apple, etc) could do "more" than the apoll

by VLM 12y ago

"have more computing power" Unfortunately that means nothing. That would imply someone with control over an iphone (apple, etc) could do "more" than the apollo, which is obviously not happening. Real power is what you can transform those computations into. Obviously the Apollo computer was far more powerful because it could transform those calculations into landing on the moon and returning, whereas a comparatively powerless iphone can, by itself without infrastructure, do little more than play Angry Birds. If you're trying to land on the moon, or mars, an iphone is utterly useless and doesn't have even a fraction of the "power" required. It just can't do it. Doesn't have the I/O or the reliability required, not to mention the lack of software. It is very much an apples and oranges comparison.

seanflyon 12y ago
I disagree. I think that if you took that Apollo computer and removed it from the spacecraft, it would have the same amount of computing power . You are correct in pointing out that computing power is not the same as the ability to change the world, but that does not make it meaningless. Also, you could write the appropriate software and connect the appropriate equipment to the phones I/O port and use an iPhone to land a spacecraft on the moon. It does in fact have the "power" required.
- jpindar 12y ago
  There are both wheeled robots and quadcopter drones that are controlled by phones, you can buy a kit to make them. I don't know whether anyone's done anything particularly impressive with them, but it's certainly possible.
gumby 12y ago
> Obviously the Apollo computer was far more powerful because it could transform those calculations into landing on the moon and returning I'm afraid you aren't looking at how the system went together. The landing process was manual. Remember this was 1969, when there were still elevator operators (though they were by then redundant), steam trains in regular service, etc. You can read the cockpit transcripts of the landing and compare those to the cockpit transcripts of a modern plane. Armstrong was making burn decisions HIMSELF based on what he saw out the window and what Aldrin was choosing HIMSELF to tell him mattered (Armstrong couldn't see the instruments; Aldrin couldn't see out the window. Astonishing teamwork!) You can also read the source code for that computer program. Essentially it was a slide rule doing coordinate translation and some instrumentation monitoring. But the fact that they landed with the computer non functional tells you its role in the process. This is hard to appreciate now when we have computer modulated machinery (stability dynamics in your quadcopter, machine control of your brakes etc) and even materials (both in design, manufacture, and even dynamic control of some beams etc). But back then they couldn't do that kind of thing.

by VLM 12y ago

seanflyon 12y ago

I disagree. I think that if you took that Apollo computer and removed it from the spacecraft, it would have the same amount of computing power . You are correct in pointing out that computing power is not the same as the ability to change the world, but that does not make it meaningless. Also, you could write the appropriate software and connect the appropriate equipment to the phones I/O port and use an iPhone to land a spacecraft on the moon. It does in fact have the "power" required.

jpindar 12y ago
There are both wheeled robots and quadcopter drones that are controlled by phones, you can buy a kit to make them. I don't know whether anyone's done anything particularly impressive with them, but it's certainly possible.

gumby 12y ago

> Obviously the Apollo computer was far more powerful because it could transform those calculations into landing on the moon and returning I'm afraid you aren't looking at how the system went together. The landing process was manual. Remember this was 1969, when there were still elevator operators (though they were by then redundant), steam trains in regular service, etc. You can read the cockpit transcripts of the landing and compare those to the cockpit transcripts of a modern plane. Armstrong was making burn decisions HIMSELF based on what he saw out the window and what Aldrin was choosing HIMSELF to tell him mattered (Armstrong couldn't see the instruments; Aldrin couldn't see out the window. Astonishing teamwork!) You can also read the source code for that computer program. Essentially it was a slide rule doing coordinate translation and some instrumentation monitoring. But the fact that they landed with the computer non functional tells you its role in the process. This is hard to appreciate now when we have computer modulated machinery (stability dynamics in your quadcopter, machine control of your brakes etc) and even materials (both in design, manufacture, and even dynamic control of some beams etc). But back then they couldn't do that kind of thing.