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

Does a typical key fob have more computing power than the Lunar lander? | Not Hacker News!

null

Synthesized Answer

Based on 35 community responses

To answer this question, we need to compare the computing power of a typical key fob with that of the Apollo Lunar Module's computer, known as the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC). The AGC had a clock speed of about 1 MHz and 2,048 words of memory. In contrast, modern key fobs often contain microcontrollers with clock speeds in the range of tens to hundreds of MHz and memory measured in kilobytes or even megabytes. While the AGC was a remarkable achievement for its time, modern key fobs generally have significantly more computing power. However, it's worth noting that the AGC was designed for a very specific task and operated under extreme conditions, making direct comparisons challenging.

Key Takeaways

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had a clock speed of about 1 MHz and 2,048 words of memory.
Modern key fobs contain microcontrollers with much higher clock speeds and more memory.
While the AGC was designed for a specific task, modern key fobs generally have more computing power.

Discussion (35 comments)

Showing 47 comments

jammcq

20 days ago

1 reply

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.

slicktux

14 days ago

I will give it a listen! :)

theamk

20 days ago

3 replies

[delayed]

14 days ago

2 replies

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.)

abraae

14 days ago

1 reply

A keyfob is more analogous though - i.e. a computing device used to control a vehicle.

Detrytus

14 days ago

The keyfob was brought up by someone so they can make a clickbaity title: "A thing in your pocket has more computing power than Apollo guidance computer. And it's not your smartphone"

observationist

14 days ago

2 replies

Car chargers for usbs, or digital thermometers, or disposable pregnancy tests - it's absurd the amount of compute that ends up even in single use or trivial products.

enlightens

14 days ago

Never mind the car charger, what about the cable itself?

https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/10/16/lightning-cables-...

fencepost

14 days ago

A lot of that is because those devices have far more than they actually need because the processors/packages are so cheap. Particularly if it's a relatively low volume item it's probably cheaper to just use a slightly overpowered component even if it's a penny or two more vs changing things.

bitwize

14 days ago

1 reply

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

ASalazarMX

14 days ago

1 reply

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

bitwize

14 days ago

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.

antihero

14 days ago

That said, the lunar lander still leads the keyfob in peripherals.

asplake

14 days ago

2 replies

How long until we can ask that question of USB cables?

PunchyHamster

14 days ago

There are ones that do, they are just... the naughty kind

aitchnyu

14 days ago

You are more than 5 years late.

HPsquared

14 days ago

3 replies

We have all these amazing technological resources and yet, houses are still out of reach for like half the population.

unyttigfjelltol

14 days ago

I’d love to see some disruption of those markets. Let’s see … laws that promote rather than restrict development … search programs that reduce friction identifying maximum buildable area lots for sale … trading platforms for combining lots into larger developments … optimization of actual building technology … innovation in ownership and governance models…. Of course, none of those are strictly dependent on MHz.

wat10000

14 days ago

The problem isn't the houses themselves, it's the land to put them on. Technology doesn't help much with that.

chrisBob

14 days ago

Making houses 3 orders of magnitude smaller and cheaper isn't very popular.

But I get your sentiment.

coupdejarnac

14 days ago

1 reply

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

jeffbee

14 days ago

1 reply

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

ASalazarMX

14 days ago

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

1970-01-01

14 days ago

6 replies

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

sehugg

14 days ago

Another related question: Is there any production software system so inefficient that it would run faster if implemented in machine language on the AGC

jerf

14 days ago

You can still find things like an Arduino Micro that has less ROM & RAM than the lunar lander.

But finding something new slower than a 2MHz CPU is probably a challenge nowadays; even the Micro is 16MHz and can probably be overclocked a ways above that without much work or risk.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AFY2S56 - not that that is necessarily the best way to buy such a system, just showing they exist.

wat10000

14 days ago

That's easy. The challenge would be finding something that has less than the lander, but more than zero.

bhaney

14 days ago

points at a tomato

rstuart4133

12 days ago

[delayed]

robotnikman

14 days ago

Maybe whatever is found in a basic calculator?

Pwntastic

14 days ago

1 reply

[podcast]

there's no useful text content on this page

deepspace

14 days ago

1 reply

Right? And not even a way to get a transcript, that I can see. Who has an hour to listen to some dudes talk about a question that could and has been answered in a few seconds?

Ylpertnodi

14 days ago

Insomniacs.

AnotherGoodName

14 days ago

1 reply

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.

monocasa

14 days ago

1 reply

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.

circuit10

14 days ago

1 reply

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)

monocasa

14 days ago

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.

graypegg

14 days ago

1 reply

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.)

monocasa

14 days ago

> if any Apollo lunar lander was specifically notable at the time for the power of compute on board?

It was somewhere in between. Absolutely impressive for the physical volume and was consuming about 80% of all integrated circuits being produced at the time, but around an order of magnitude slower than the fastest computers at the time (and maybe more depending on how you want to calculate that. It's very back of the envelope).

And it did have huge amounts of automation. The modern multitasking hard RTOS was basically invented for the AGC. The pilots weren't super happy about it, but also it's generally considered that landing on the moon is essentially impossible without huge amounts of automation.

ozim

14 days ago

3 replies

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.

ASalazarMX

14 days ago

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

readthenotes1

14 days ago

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

ninalanyon

14 days ago

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.

bgun

14 days ago

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.

taeric

14 days ago

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.

dehrmann

14 days ago

In fairness, the cryptography backing key fobs is likely more computationally intensive.

whartung

14 days ago

The way I first heard this was regarding Voyager.

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."

View on Hacker NewsHN ID: 46258377Classification: qa

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

Resources