Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 11/22/2011 10:24:44 AM EDT
The computer in your cell phone has more processing power than all the combined computers in the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander that put 2 men on the moon.


And to think we havent gone further...
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:26:16 AM EDT
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:26:22 AM EDT
We weren't limited in distance by computing power.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:27:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.

And bloated, inefficient idiots using them.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:27:41 AM EDT
Did the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander need to remove the battery and reboot it daily....

My BB does...
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:28:25 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kcolg30:
Did the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander need to remove the battery and reboot it daily....

My BB does...


Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:28:44 AM EDT

Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.

And bloated, inefficient idiots using them.


That's true too.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:30:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:30:10 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.


Ding. Ding. Ding.

Just because you can write an infinite amount of shit code and maybe accomplish something doesn't mean you should.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:32:33 AM EDT
I read somewhere that the Space Shuttle's computer was roughly equivalent to a Commodore 64. Hopefully the next NASA craft will be a step up in computing power.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:33:26 AM EDT
are the real issues more in dealing with hardware? A reliable artificial gravity generator for starters?
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:33:48 AM EDT
Not me I don't have a smart phone
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:33:58 AM EDT
So how many teraflops does it take to lift a 1kg object into orbit?
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:37:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By kcolg30:
Did the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander need to remove the battery and reboot it daily....

My BB does...


Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:38:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ckichinko:
Originally Posted By kcolg30:
Did the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander need to remove the battery and reboot it daily....

My BB does...


IIRC they had to keep resetting the lunar lander computer because it was asked to exceed its capabilities

Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:38:24 AM EDT
Seems I heard it explained by some NASA type that they are and have been aware of the huge difference in computational power and did it on purpose.

The reason being that the simpler the computer, the less chance of it having a bug or crashing and shutting everything down. It needs to work flawless all the time every time.

The same applies to the computers in modern military jets too, I believe. Before the F-22 everything was pretty basic because simple was reliable.

Could be wrong though.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:40:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Penguin_101:
Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.


Ding. Ding. Ding.

Just because you can write an infinite amount of shit code and maybe accomplish something doesn't mean you should.


I was thinking more along the lines of "just because you have an infinite amount of computing power it doesn't mean your shit code is going to be high speed, low drag"
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:40:30 AM EDT
Just remember, while early rockets/space vehicles and only a small mount of digital computing power, they had a lot of what could be considered analog computing/decision making power. Both, mechanical and electrical/electronic controllers made then operational ––and arguably even safer.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:40:52 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
are the real issues more in dealing with hardware? A reliable artificial gravity generator for starters?


As opposed to the plethora of unrelaible artificial gravity generators?

Nick

Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:45:27 AM EDT

What is left of NASA is focused on makin' relations with the sand people.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 10:54:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/22/2011 10:55:35 AM EDT by Andr0id]
Originally Posted By marcushire:
Seems I heard it explained by some NASA type that they are and have been aware of the huge difference in computational power and did it on purpose.

The reason being that the simpler the computer, the less chance of it having a bug or crashing and shutting everything down. It needs to work flawless all the time every time.

The same applies to the computers in modern military jets too, I believe. Before the F-22 everything was pretty basic because simple was reliable.

Could be wrong though.


Critical system developers spend an insane amount of time doing what computer scientists call formal verification. This involves analyzing every function for logical correctness both on paper at a design level and also writing more code to model the conditions of of the code you're really writing.

A buddy did this kind of work several years back. Three teams had to independently come up with the same answer to be considered right. I'd go insane.

The hardware only needs to be "fast enough" to come up with the outputs you need on a regular interval.

This is rarely done for most software products where acceptance is based primarily on functional testing.



Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:13:51 PM EDT
And yet we didn't even save the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket, Apollo command mod and LIM that got us there.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:15:18 PM EDT
Shit, my phone has more processing power than the Shuttle originally rolled out with, and that setup stayed with the poor old bird for a lot longer than you'd imagine.

8088 IIRC.
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:18:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USMCRONIN:
And yet we didn't even save the blueprints for the Saturn V rocket, Apollo command mod and LIM that got us there.


?

Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:18:07 PM EDT
Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.

And bloated, inefficient idiots using them.


LOL!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:19:22 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Willmar:
I read somewhere that the Space Shuttle's computer was roughly equivalent to a Commodore 64. Hopefully the next NASA craft will be a step up in computing power.


They'll be using the "New" Intel x486 models!!
Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:20:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By capnrob97:

Originally Posted By DragoMuseveni:
What do we get with all this processing power? Bloated, inefficient software.

And bloated, inefficient idiots using them.

You said that you wouldn't make fun of me.


Link Posted: 11/22/2011 12:27:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By InfiniteGrim:
The computer in your cell phone has more processing power than all the combined computers in the Apollo 11 Lunar Lander that put 2 men on the moon.


And to think we havent gone further...


Yeah, but they didn't have annoying ring tones on Apollo 11.
Top Top