a lot with a little! How powerful was the Apollo 11 computer.

[+Warwagon MVC]

How powerful was the Apollo 11 computer?

by Grant Robertson on July 20, 2009 at 08:30 PM

With all the buzz about the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing I got to thinking, how powerful were the computers that "took us to the Moon?" It turns out, they were nothing short of amazing. If you've never had a nerdy bone in your body, feel free to skip this post. But, if you ever laid on your back under the stars and thought about Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or the Space Shuttle, read on and see if you're as geek-struck as I was researching this.

Comparing the Apollo Guidance Computer to an IBM PC XT

My first thought was how did the Apollo computer compare to the iPhone? It turns out that's a really tough comparison to make. The iPhone is so advanced compared to the computer used in Apollo's guidance system that it's hard to believe they both came from the same planet -- at roughly the same period in time when viewed in contrast to man's time line on Earth. To really make a comparison that makes much sense it's much easier to look at the home computers of the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Take Intel's venerable 8086 for example -- you might know it better as "x86". Released in 1979, just a decade after Apollo 11's trip to the Moon, the 8086's cousin, the 8088, formed the basis for the IBM PC we all know and love. When the IBM PC "XT" was released in 1981, the lowest end configuration had 8 times more memory than Apollo's Guidance Computer -- 16k, vs the Apollo's 2k. The read-only storage of the AGC was 32k,

The IBM PC XT also ran at a dizzying clock speed of 4.077MHz. That's 0.004077 GHz. The Apollo's Guidance Computer was a snail-like 1.024 MHz in comparison, and it's external signaling was half that -- actually measured in Hz (1/1000th of 1 MHz, much as 1 MHz is 1/1000 of 1 GHz).

Internally, the 8086 had 8 16-bit registers available to work with -- for those not familiar with the internals of a processor, a register is much like the numbers you'd keep in your head while doing math, and "memory" is more like scratch paper where you write things down for later use. The 8086 could keep track of 8 of those, the Apollo Guidance Computer held just 4. (The AGC also had a host of other non-general purpose registers, ranging from 1 to 16 bits in width, but it's difficult to compare those with the architecture of the 8086)

http://downloadsquad...lo-11-computer/

[Arpit]

probably the first post i've liked from you. please do more of these.

[Farstrider]

Very nice post Warwagon, I've downloaded the PDF's and who knows, perhaps this is a project for the future! :)

[metallithrax]

I agree with the above posts. You need to post more like this and less like the "jokes" you post.

Very informative.

[threetonesun]

Old computers were old. That said, if you compare the Apollo computer to what was around 20 years before it, it's an even bigger jump than the Apollo -> IBM.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I agree with the above posts. You need to post more like this and less like the "jokes" you post.

Very informative.

You should check out the guide section. I have TONS of informative guides!

[WAQT]

@warwagon, it will be interesting though if you can actually compare it with an iPhone, like comparing memory vs memory and processor vs processor, in percentages? that will be a more catchy, since the first computer I used was a Pentium, I can not 'feel' how slow it must have been :)

[+Warwagon MVC]

What's funny is that calculators that kids use for school have more power than Apollo 11 did.

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

the computers on the shuttle, orbiter, and space station dont have to calculate anything, thats up the astronauts.

the only thing the computers have to do is, " this button activates the toilet flush, this button activates the front right booster for as long as you hold it down "

calculators now a days are more powerful then anything NASA has in space, because they don't have to actually calculate anything, just relay information to a human operator / smarter computer

[Hum]

Powerful enuff to make you believe we landed on the Moon. :shifty:

[ATLien_0]

crazy to think that mi TI-83 from school is more powerful than the Apollo 11 computer

[Hell-In-A-Handbasket]

Powerful enuff to make you believe we landed on the Moon. :shifty:

yea they can even put a fake picture in front of your backyard telescope without you knowing making you believe you can see the landing sites and abandoned hardware / track marks

[The_Decimator]

Now compare it to the IBM Sequioa. I want to know just so I can laugh.

EDIT: I know if comparing it to the iPhone was inconceivable, comparing it to the Sequioa will be a trillion times more so, but still, DO IT!

[Scorbing]

How powerful was the Apollo 11 computer?

by Grant Robertson on July 20, 2009 at 08:30 PM

With all the buzz about the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 Moon landing I got to thinking, how powerful were the computers that "took us to the Moon?" It turns out, they were nothing short of amazing. If you've never had a nerdy bone in your body, feel free to skip this post. But, if you ever laid on your back under the stars and thought about Mercury, Gemini, Apollo or the Space Shuttle, read on and see if you're as geek-struck as I was researching this.

Comparing the Apollo Guidance Computer to an IBM PC XT

My first thought was how did the Apollo computer compare to the iPhone? It turns out that's a really tough comparison to make. The iPhone is so advanced compared to the computer used in Apollo's guidance system that it's hard to believe they both came from the same planet -- at roughly the same period in time when viewed in contrast to man's time line on Earth. To really make a comparison that makes much sense it's much easier to look at the home computers of the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Take Intel's venerable 8086 for example -- you might know it better as "x86". Released in 1979, just a decade after Apollo 11's trip to the Moon, the 8086's cousin, the 8088, formed the basis for the IBM PC we all know and love. When the IBM PC "XT" was released in 1981, the lowest end configuration had 8 times more memory than Apollo's Guidance Computer -- 16k, vs the Apollo's 2k. The read-only storage of the AGC was 32k,

The IBM PC XT also ran at a dizzying clock speed of 4.077MHz. That's 0.004077 GHz. The Apollo's Guidance Computer was a snail-like 1.024 MHz in comparison, and it's external signaling was half that -- actually measured in Hz (1/1000th of 1 MHz, much as 1 MHz is 1/1000 of 1 GHz).

Internally, the 8086 had 8 16-bit registers available to work with -- for those not familiar with the internals of a processor, a register is much like the numbers you'd keep in your head while doing math, and "memory" is more like scratch paper where you write things down for later use. The 8086 could keep track of 8 of those, the Apollo Guidance Computer held just 4. (The AGC also had a host of other non-general purpose registers, ranging from 1 to 16 bits in width, but it's difficult to compare those with the architecture of the 8086)

http://downloadsquad...lo-11-computer/

According to former ground test astronaut Clark McClelland (www.stargate-chronicles.com), the computer on the Eagle had less memory than a pocket calculator. Makes you wonder how they managed to land that thing and not kill themselves!!!!

[The_Decimator]

What's funny is that calculators that kids use for school have more power than Apollo 11 did.

Compare it to a Game & Watch!

[*RedBull*]

what cpu power did the first sattlelite have? Apollo 11 must have been so advanced.

[Detection]

Computer power is one thing, speed would have been nice for them, but the software would be what was doing all the work, good software + rocket scientists brains = moon landing, faster computer would have just save a few grey hairs me thinks :p

[Shannon]

what cpu power did the first sattlelite have? Apollo 11 must have been so advanced.

The first artificial satellite was Sputnik 1 by the USSR. Aside from space-race propaganda, the only purpose of the satellite was to transmit temperature information from space back to Earth. Basically all it had on board was a temperature sensor and a radio transmitter. The transmitter would 'beep' on a certain radio frequency, and the pitch of the beep would vary depending on the temperature.

All of this I assume would have been implemented using simple analogue electronics. So to answer your question, the first satellite probably didn't have any CPU power at all.

[Tomoko]

Nice post, of course for what the Apollo computer had to do that's all the power it needed.

Also small correction but the 8088 in the IBM PC and PC/XT ran at 4.77 MHz, not 4.077 ;)