Polestar Forum banner
21 - 35 of 35 Posts

Registered
Joined
1,421 Posts
Because I have been using Google Assistant on many devices for many years, voice commands are very easy for me. And the best thing is I don't have to look at the screen/controls at all. Most commands have an audio confirmation so again no need to look. My wife has less success with the Assistant, but she does have a stronger accent and does not clearly enunciate her commands so her experience is not as positive as mine. I think this is the big advantage AAOS has for me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbvolks

Registered
Joined
6,690 Posts
Because I have been using Google Assistant on many devices for many years, voice commands are very easy for me. And the best thing is I don't have to look at the screen/controls at all. Most commands have an audio confirmation so again no need to look. My wife has less success with the Assistant, but she does have a stronger accent and does not clearly enunciate her commands so her experience is not as positive as mine. I think this is the big advantage AAOS has for me.
It's also a natural language system. So you don't have to know specific commands to get it to do something.
 

Registered
Joined
187 Posts
I have driven BMW鈥檚 for a long time from the start of iDrive. It is a simple and straight forward system easier than many of the early backwards car reviewers lambasted. Change is never easy and the AAOS seems to have figured it out better than the newest and current MBUX and iDrive systems.
 

Registered
Joined
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
I wonder how much more computing power our cars have in comparison to the last Apollo mission.
Funny enough, I鈥檓 pretty sure that there鈥檚 an Intel A3900 鈥Apollo Lake鈥 in the 2. Not that this really answers your question, but that鈥檚 likely clocked in the 1.1-1.6 GHz range as opposed to 2.048 MHz on the Raytheon system in Apollo so yeah that鈥檚 ::checks math:: lots more.

Then again, the latter got folks to the moon with like millimeter precision and we鈥檙e stuck with Pilot Assist so鈥..
 

Registered
Joined
651 Posts
Funny enough, I鈥檓 pretty sure that there鈥檚 an Intel A3900 鈥Apollo Lake鈥 in the 2. Not that this really answers your question, but that鈥檚 likely clocked in the 1.1-1.6 GHz range as opposed to 2.048 MHz on the Raytheon system in Apollo so yeah that鈥檚 ::checks math:: lots more.

Then again, the latter got folks to the moon with like millimeter precision and we鈥檙e stuck with Pilot Assist so鈥..
Font Number Screenshot Parallel Magenta


Obviously, AAOS has been updated since this was published.
 

Registered
Joined
6,690 Posts
Funny enough, I鈥檓 pretty sure that there鈥檚 an Intel A3900 鈥Apollo Lake鈥 in the 2. Not that this really answers your question, but that鈥檚 likely clocked in the 1.1-1.6 GHz range as opposed to 2.048 MHz on the Raytheon system in Apollo so yeah that鈥檚 ::checks math:: lots more.

Then again, the latter got folks to the moon with like millimeter precision and we鈥檙e stuck with Pilot Assist so鈥..
Apollo was run on IBM 360s. It's not easy to make direct comparisons because the architecture and programming languages were so different. But the clock speed of an individual core was in the Khz range. The languages used were mostly Assembler and Fortran. Today's high-level languages suck up so much overhead it's pathetic. Assembler allows you to directly control absolutely everything in the core and make things very efficient. The onboard "computers" (if you can call them that) for Apollo were even more primitive. But as such they were purpose built to do exactly what they needed to do (mostly guidance) and nothing more. In that sense they were more than powerful enough. They were also bullet proof for a man-rated application. By the time Shuttle came around, the onboard computers were a less purpose built AP101 and the ground systems were IBM 370. Still considered old at the time, the AP101 was known to be bullet proof which was a key attribute. And still there were 5 of them onboard. To the same requirements, 4 were programmed by one company and 1 by another. If 3 or more of the 4 primaries came up with the same answer, it stuck. If there was not a consensus among the 4 primaries, then the 5th computer would make the final decision. Despite the raw power, there really is no comparison between a modern phone and any of the computing that was done for maned missions.
 

Registered
Joined
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Apollo was run on IBM 360s. It's not easy to make direct comparisons because the architecture and programming languages were so different. But the clock speed of an individual core was in the Khz range. The languages used were mostly Assembler and Fortran. Today's high-level languages suck up so much overhead it's pathetic. Assembler allows you to directly control absolutely everything in the core and make things very efficient. The onboard "computers" (if you can call them that) for Apollo were even more primitive. But as such they were purpose built to do exactly what they needed to do (mostly guidance) and nothing more. In that sense they were more than powerful enough. They were also bullet proof for a man-rated application. By the time Shuttle came around, the onboard computers were a less purpose built AP101 and the ground systems were IBM 370. Still considered old at the time, the AP101 was known to be bullet proof which was a key attribute. And still there were 5 of them onboard. To the same requirements, 4 were programmed by one company and 1 by another. If 3 or more of the 4 primaries came up with the same answer, it stuck. If there was not a consensus among the 4 primaries, then the 5th computer would make the final decision. Despite the raw power, there really is no comparison between a modern phone and any of the computing that was done for maned missions.
Maybe I鈥檓 mistaken 鈥 I was speaking of the onboard guidance computer in the CM. I think IBM was used for ground systems / mainframe computing (360) as well as on the Saturn V launch vehicle, yes? Not that any of this matters to Polestar 馃槀
 

Registered
Joined
6,690 Posts
Maybe I鈥檓 mistaken 鈥 I was speaking of the onboard guidance computer in the CM. I think IBM was used for ground systems / mainframe computing (360) as well as on the Saturn V launch vehicle, yes? Not that any of this matters to Polestar 馃槀
You are correct. The "computer" onboard Apollo was a purpose built guidance system. But it couldn't do much without commands from the ground based system (IBM 360). Telemetry and Command functions were critical, and remained so through the Shuttle program. For instance, during the Challenger accident, even before there was confirmation of the explosioni, the initial sign of disaster at Mission Control was the loss of the telemetry link. At that point even if there hadn't been a catastrophic event, the craft would likely have had an unplanned and disastrous "landing".
 

Registered
Joined
746 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
You are correct. The "computer" onboard Apollo was a purpose built guidance system. But it couldn't do much without commands from the ground based system (IBM 360). Telemetry and Command functions were critical, and remained so through the Shuttle program. For instance, during the Challenger accident, even before there was confirmation of the explosioni, the initial sign of disaster at Mission Control was the loss of the telemetry link. At that point even if there hadn't been a catastrophic event, the craft would likely have had an unplanned and disastrous "landing".
And here we are with basic connectivity issues so to bring it all back full circle, the 1960s technology wins again :)
 
21 - 35 of 35 Posts
Top