Mobile Phone vs. Apollo 11’s Guidance Computer

Could an iPhone or a modern smartphone (2024) Fly Me to the Moon? With the technology available today, the crew of Apollo 11 could have had a much easier ride.

Are you curious about how Apollo 11’s computer stacks up against your smartphone? You’re in for a revelation.

---

The Astonishing Gap in Computing Power

The disparity between the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer (AGC) and today’s smartphones is staggering, both in terms of speed and computational capability. The AGC operates at a clock speed of 2.048 MHz, while a modern iPhone’s A15 chip boasts a clock speed of up to 3.23 GHz for its high-performance cores[1][2]. This makes the iPhone significantly faster than the computer that took humanity to the Moon, although the exact multiplier depends on various factors beyond just clock speed[1][3]. The AGC was built to manage essential calculations for space navigation and landing, whereas today’s smartphones can perform complex tasks like augmented reality and machine learning thanks to their advanced processors and specialized hardware[1][2].

Citations:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A15
[2] https://nanoreview.net/en/soc/apple-a15-bionic
[3] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-performance-review-faster-more-efficient
[4] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-performance-review-faster-more-efficient/2
[5] https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/apple-a17-pro-vs-apple-a15-bionic
[6] https://nanoreview.net/en/soc-compare/apple-a15-bionic-vs-apple-a12-bionic
[7] https://apollo11space.com/mobile-phone-vs-apollo-11s-guidance-computer/
[8] https://versus.com/en/apple-a15-bionic-vs-apple-a16-bionic

The Size Comparison

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) weighed a hefty 70 pounds and took up approximately 1 cubic foot of space inside the Apollo spacecraft[1]. In contrast, a modern iPhone weighs about 6 ounces and has dimensions that allow it to comfortably fit into your pocket[2]. The downsizing of computing power over the decades is nothing short of revolutionary. Imagine trying to fit the AGC in your pocket! The power-to-size ratio has experienced a paradigm shift that would likely be unfathomable to the engineers who worked on the Apollo missions.

The difference between the AGC and your mobile phone isn’t just about their raw specs; it’s about what these machines were able to accomplish with what they had. Apollo 11’s AGC helped astronauts break free from Earth’s gravitational pull, navigate space, and land on the Moon[1]. Your smartphone, on the other hand, has the power to connect you to virtually anyone in the world, guide you via GPS, and even translate languages in real-time, all while fitting snugly in your pocket[1].

This comparison highlights not only the incredible technological advancements we’ve made but also the ingenuity of the Apollo-era engineers who accomplished so much with comparatively limited resources. While modern smartphones boast vastly superior processing power and versatility, the AGC’s specialized design was crucial for its time and purpose, showcasing how far we’ve come in miniaturizing and expanding the capabilities of our computing devices.

Citations:
[1] https://apollo11space.com/mobile-phone-vs-apollo-11s-guidance-computer/
[2] https://www.ecoatm.com/blogs/news/iphone-size-comparisons
[3] https://www.phonearena.com/reviews/apple-iphone-15-pro-max-vs-iphone-14-pro-max_id5816
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sr4SXu4uA5E
[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftRo4SuNqWw
[6] https://mashable.com/article/apple-iphone-16-vs-15-price-specs-screen-size
[7] https://mashable.com/article/apple-iphone-16-vs-14-price-specs-screen-size
[8] https://www.reddit.com/r/apple/comments/jbx6hw/iphone_12_size_comparison_all_iphone_models_side/

While we’ve touched on the fascinating contrasts between the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer and modern technology, for a deeper dive into the AGC’s role and its pivotal significance during the Apollo 11 mission, you won’t want to miss our detailed article: Apollo Guidance Computer and Its Significance During the Apollo 11 Mission.

What About a Calculator?

Calculators: The Unsung Heroes

When it comes to computing power, the comparison between modern calculators and the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer (AGC) is often misunderstood. Let’s correct the facts:

A basic $10 scientific calculator typically operates at a clock speed between 1-4 MHz. The AGC ran at 2.048 MHz. This means that in terms of raw clock speed, the AGC was comparable to, or even faster than, some modern basic scientific calculators.

However, clock speed alone doesn’t tell the whole story of computational power. The AGC was a specialized computer designed for space navigation, featuring a 16-bit word length and custom instruction set. Modern calculators, while potentially having similar clock speeds, are optimized for different types of calculations and may have more efficient architectures for their specific tasks.

It’s important to note that the AGC’s capabilities were indeed revolutionary for its time, especially considering its specialized purpose and the constraints of space travel. While today’s calculators might outperform the AGC in certain calculations, the AGC’s ability to guide spacecraft to the Moon and back was a remarkable achievement given the technology of the 1960s.

Citations:
[1] https://forrestheller.com/Apollo-11-Computer-vs-USB-C-chargers.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer
[3] https://apollo11space.com/mobile-phone-vs-apollo-11s-guidance-computer/
[4] https://www.reddit.com/r/ElectricalEngineering/comments/17abd7i/how_powerful_were_the_computersmicrocontrollers/
[5] https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2019/07/02/your_mobile_phone_vs_apollo_11s_guidance_computer_111026.html
[6] https://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/m93603/til_the_computer_involved_in_apollo_11_mission/
[7] https://www.hackreactor.com/resources/todays-computers-vs-the-apollo-11-moon-landing-machine/
[8] https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2022/11/08/fast-forward-comparing-1980s-supercomputer-to-modern-smartphone

Solar vs. Battery Power

The AGC was powered by fuel cells and batteries. It was essential to ration power meticulously during the mission to ensure the system did not fail at a critical moment. On the other hand, modern calculators have come a long way in power efficiency, with many models incorporating solar panels.

These solar calculators can function indefinitely in well-lit conditions, presenting an intriguing “what if?” scenario. Had solar power technology been as advanced then as it is today, Apollo 11 could potentially have saved valuable power for other critical systems or emergencies, thereby reducing some of the risks associated with the mission.

The leap from the AGC to today’s scientific calculators demonstrates not just advances in raw computing power but also in energy efficiency. The switch from reliance on limited battery power to efficient solar energy is an innovation that could have had practical implications for the Apollo 11 mission. Just imagine: a simple tool that you use to calculate your monthly budget could technically have had the computing power to guide a spacecraft to the moon and back in the 1960s. This contrast serves as a testament to the remarkable advancements in technology that we often take for granted.

What if Apollo 11 Had a Modern Computer?

A Revolution in Task Efficiency

If Apollo 11 had been equipped with a modern computer, the mission would have experienced unprecedented efficiency. Tasks that took minutes for the AGC to process could be executed in microseconds. Complex calculations, like trajectory adjustments, could be done on the fly, making the mission more adaptable to unexpected changes or challenges.

Increased Data Processing and Storage

With modern storage capabilities, the spacecraft could record and analyze immense volumes of data. The Apollo 11 operated on a mere 64KB of memory. In contrast, a modern smartphone boasts around 64GB of storage, a million times greater. The data gathered from sensors, cameras, and communication devices could be stored, analyzed, and even transmitted back to Earth in real-time, thereby enabling more accurate and immediate scientific discoveries.

Enhanced Safety Measures

Today’s computational abilities could also improve safety protocols. The AGC was primarily focused on guidance, navigation, and control. A modern computer could run advanced simulations and predictive models to anticipate issues before they become critical, thereby enhancing the astronauts’ safety. It could also manage an array of systems simultaneously, from life-support to propulsion, streamlining the overall mission management.

Energy Efficiency and Sustainability

Modern computers also come with advanced energy-saving modes, which could significantly prolong the mission’s battery life. Unlike the AGC, which was power-hungry and required meticulous management, a contemporary computing system could optimize its energy usage depending on the task at hand. This could be a game-changer in mission-critical situations where energy is the limiting factor.

The ‘What-If’ Conundrum

While it’s tempting to speculate on how much “easier” the Apollo 11 mission could have been with today’s technology, it’s crucial to remember that the success of Apollo 11 was not just due to hardware but also the collective efforts of engineers, mathematicians, and astronauts. They achieved an extraordinary feat with the limited resources available, pushing the boundaries of human achievement.

In summary, the application of modern computing to the Apollo 11 mission creates an intriguing landscape of possibilities, from streamlined tasks and enhanced data collection to improved safety and energy efficiency. Yet, it also serves as a tribute to the monumental achievements of the original Apollo 11 team, who made do with what was then considered the pinnacle of high technology.

While the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer was an engineering marvel, the astronauts’ communication systems were equally groundbreaking. Learn all about the ‘Snoopy Cap,’ the iconic communications carrier of Apollo 11, in our dedicated article: The Communications Carrier of Apollo 11: Snoopy Cap.

How Big Was Apollo 11’s Computer?

Comparison Table: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs iPhone

Feature	Apollo 11 Guidance Computer	iPhone
Size	About 1 cubic foot	Fits in your hand (Miniaturized)
Weight	70 pounds	5 ounces

The Size of a Car Trunk

When you think of a computer today, you probably envision something that fits comfortably on your desk or even in your pocket. However, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was a different story. Occupying about 1 cubic foot, it was bulky by today’s standards, where miniaturization is the order of the day. To put this in perspective, the AGC was roughly the size of a car trunk. Its heftiness reflects the technological constraints of the time, as engineers were focused more on functionality than portability.

How Much Did It Weigh?

The AGC tipped the scales at 70 pounds. Contrast this with a modern iPhone, which weighs in at about 5 ounces. That’s a staggering difference, showing just how far we’ve come in making powerful computers not only smaller but also much lighter. The weight was a critical factor for the Apollo 11 mission, given the cost of sending each pound into space.

Material and Construction

The AGC was constructed using materials like aluminum and consisted of thousands of integrated circuits. While rugged and reliable, these materials also contributed to its significant weight and size. On the flip side, modern smartphones utilize lighter and more durable materials like glass and titanium, showcasing advances not just in computing power but also in material science.

The Evolution of Space

The size and weight of the AGC were significant factors when considering the spacecraft’s overall design and fuel requirements. Today, the miniaturization of technology allows for more efficient use of space within the craft, enabling the inclusion of additional scientific instruments or even the ability to accommodate more astronauts.

In summary, the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer’s size and weight were emblematic of the technological era it belonged to. While it may have been bulky and heavy, it was a marvel for its time, a critical component that helped humanity reach the moon. The comparisons with today’s technology not only highlight how far we’ve come but also pay tribute to the groundbreaking achievements of the Apollo era.

How Was the AGC Designed?

Design and Durability: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs Modern Chips

Feature	Apollo 11 Guidance Computer	Modern Chips
Integrated Circuits	4,100 integrated circuits	Billions of transistors in a single chip
Durability	Engineered to withstand cosmic rays and high radiation	Striving for radiation resistance; most consumer electronics not designed for extreme conditions

A Breakthrough in Design

The Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) was an engineering marvel of its time. Unlike the behemoth mainframes of the era, which filled entire rooms, the AGC was built to be compact and light enough for space travel. This design requirement led to the innovative use of 4,100 integrated circuits, a feature that was revolutionary for the 1960s. At that time, most computers were still being made with individual transistors and resistors.

Modular Architecture

The AGC’s design featured a modular architecture that allowed for easier upgrades and modifications. Each module was specialized for a specific function, be it navigation, computation, or data storage. This modular approach was far ahead of its time and has influenced modern computer architecture.

Built to Last

One of the significant challenges in designing the AGC was ensuring its durability. Remember, this computer had to survive the extreme conditions of space, including exposure to cosmic rays and high radiation. Special materials and construction techniques were used to make the AGC resilient against these factors. It’s an aspect of design that even modern electronics are still striving to achieve, especially for applications like space travel and nuclear energy.

User Interface and Software

While the AGC was primarily a number-crunching machine, it also had a rudimentary user interface consisting of a numeric keypad and a set of simple display indicators. This interface had to be intuitive enough for astronauts to operate under the stress of a space mission. The software for the AGC, known as the Apollo Guidance Software, was written in AGC4 assembler language and was stored on rope memory, a type of read-only storage that was both lightweight and reliable.

Limitations and Constraints

Designing the AGC was a balancing act of technological capabilities and mission requirements. Engineers had to be mindful of power consumption, as the Apollo spacecraft had a finite supply of electricity. They also had to optimize the computer’s processing abilities to perform critical calculations like trajectory and rendezvous computations within an acceptable time frame.

In summary, the AGC was a marvel of design engineering tailored to meet the unique challenges of space travel in the Apollo era. It leveraged groundbreaking technology, from integrated circuits to modular architecture, setting the stage for future advancements in computer science.

As we discuss the technological leaps from Apollo 11 to today, it’s worth noting that tracking stations played a critical role in the mission’s success. For an in-depth look at the unsung heroes that made real-time communication and data relay possible, check out our article on the Tracking Stations of the Apollo Program.

What Kind of Software Was Used on Apollo 11?

Software Comparison: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs Modern Software

Feature	Apollo 11 Guidance Computer	Modern Software
Lines of Code	About 145,000 lines of code	12-15 million lines of code (Android OS)
Programming Language	AGC4 assembler language	Python, C++, among others

The Coding Masterpiece

When it comes to the software that powered the Apollo 11 mission, the term “coding masterpiece” isn’t an exaggeration. Consisting of about 145,000 lines of code, the Apollo Guidance Software was written in AGC4 assembler language. To put that into perspective, today’s Android operating system comprises about 12 to 15 million lines of code. The Apollo software was a feat of engineering, elegantly designed to manage a host of functions like trajectory calculations, engine burns, and rendezvous tasks—all with limited computational resources.

The Language of Space: AGC4 Assembler

The Apollo software used AGC4 assembler language, which might sound archaic when compared to modern programming languages like Python or C++. But AGC4 was meticulously crafted for the mission’s needs. It was highly specialized to be both resource-efficient and reliable, ensuring that the spacecraft could execute its mission-critical tasks without hitches.

Rope Memory: The Pinnacle of Reliability

Interestingly, the code was stored on something known as “rope memory.” This form of read-only storage was woven manually, with wires passing through or around magnetic cores to represent binary ones and zeros. This was an extremely stable form of memory, resistant to radiation and other environmental factors astronauts would encounter in space.

User Interface: The DSKY

The Apollo Guidance Computer featured a user interface known as the DSKY (Display and Keyboard). This interface consisted of a simple keypad and an array of indicator lights. It was designed to be intuitive enough for astronauts to operate under the high-stress environment of a space mission. The DSKY allowed astronauts to enter simple commands, check the status, and even troubleshoot issues.

Safety Measures: Error Handling

The Apollo software was designed with a range of safety measures to handle errors and unexpected situations. It had priority scheduling, a form of multitasking that allowed mission-critical tasks to take precedence over less important tasks. When the computer experienced an overload, lower-priority tasks would be postponed to ensure that crucial calculations were performed in real-time.

In summary, the Apollo 11 software was an engineering marvel tailored to meet the unique challenges and limitations of the time. It functioned as the brain behind the successful execution of the mission, leveraging state-of-the-art technology and innovative programming techniques.

While Apollo 11 remains a hallmark in space history, the lesser-known Apollo 5 mission laid the groundwork for its success by testing the Lunar Module for the first time. To learn more about this pivotal precursor mission, don’t miss our informative article on The Apollo 5 Mission: The First Test Flight of the Lunar Module.

Apollo 11 Computer vs. Today’s Smartphone

The Astonishing Gap in Computing Power

When we put Apollo 11’s Guidance Computer (AGC) side-by-side with a modern smartphone, the gap in computing power is staggering. For example, the AGC operated at a measly 0.043 MHz, whereas the latest iPhone’s A15 chip clocks in at around 3.23 GHz. To lay it out clearly, modern smartphones are approximately 120 million times faster than the Apollo 11 guidance system. That’s a number so large it’s almost hard to fathom.

The Size Comparison: Portability Matters

When Neil Armstrong stepped on the moon, the AGC that guided him there weighed 70 pounds and occupied about 1 cubic foot. Fast forward to today, and your iPhone fits comfortably in your hand, weighing about 5 ounces. We’ve come a long way in terms of miniaturization and portability, aspects that revolutionize how we interact with technology daily.

The Leap in Storage Capacity

If the AGC had an Achilles’ heel, it would probably be its memory. The computer operated on just 64KB of memory. On the other hand, your smartphone comes packed with around 64GB of storage, which is one million times greater. Imagine trying to fit today’s apps and software into a 64KB frame; it would be an impossible feat.

The CPU Battle: Raw Speed

The AGC had a CPU speed of 1.024 MHz. In comparison, the CPU speeds of today’s smartphones are clocked in gigahertz. This means that in terms of raw clock speed, modern phones are nearly 3,200 times faster than the AGC. This leap allows our phones to multitask, stream high-definition videos, and run complex applications—something the Apollo computer could never dream of.

Software Complexity: The Evolution

Modern smartphones are capable of running operating systems with millions of lines of code. They support an array of programming languages, apps, and functionalities. In contrast, the Apollo computer operated on about 145,000 lines of code written in AGC4 assembler language.

Energy Efficiency: The Silent Revolution

While it’s not just about raw power and speed, modern smartphones are also incredibly energy-efficient. They operate on battery power that can last a whole day, performing tasks that would have overwhelmed the Apollo computer’s finite energy resources within minutes.

In conclusion, the gap between the AGC and today’s smartphones isn’t just wide; it’s a chasm. But it’s crucial to remember that the AGC was a pioneer, setting the stage for the technological marvels we take for granted today. We might have smartphones in our pockets, but we stood on the moon first, guided by a machine that’s a relic compared to what we have now—and that’s a testament to human ingenuity.

Comparing Apollo 11’s Guidance Computer with Today’s Cutting-Edge Smartphones

Comparison: Apollo 11 Guidance Computer vs. Popular Mobile Phones

Device	Processing Speed	Memory	Size and Weight
Apollo 11 AGC	0.043 MHz	64KB	70 pounds, 1 cubic foot
iPhone 13 Pro	3.23 GHz	Up to 1TB	7.65 ounces, 5.78 x 2.82 x 0.30 inches
Samsung Galaxy S21	2.84 GHz	Up to 512GB	6.07 ounces, 5.97 x 2.80 x 0.31 inches
Google Pixel 6 Pro	2.80 GHz	Up to 512GB	7.41 ounces, 6.35 x 2.97 x 0.35 inches

Wrapping Up: The Evolution from Apollo 11 to Today’s Smartphones—A Journey in Technological Triumph

In the grand tapestry of technological evolution, the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer stands as a pioneering cornerstone. While today’s smartphones dwarf it in terms of speed, memory, and capabilities, it’s essential to remember that the AGC accomplished a feat once considered the realm of fantasy—landing humans on the Moon. This extraordinary journey from 0.043 MHz to gigahertz, from 64KB to terabytes, underscores not just how far technology has come but how much farther human ingenuity can go. As we commemorate the monumental achievements of the Apollo program, let’s also celebrate the pocket-sized powerhouses that continue to shape our world today.

If you’re fascinated by how far technology has come since the Apollo 11 mission, you’ll be amazed to discover the everyday technological innovations that originated from the Apollo program. Check out our in-depth article on 5 Technological Innovations We Use Every Day That Came From the Apollo Program to learn more.

Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. The links provided are affiliate links, and I may earn a commission if you make a purchase through them at no extra cost to you.

For those of you who want to delve deeper into the intricacies of the Apollo Guidance Computer, the go-to resource is ‘The Apollo Guidance Computer: Architecture and Operation‘ by Springer Praxis Books. Available on Amazon, this comprehensive guide offers an unparalleled look into the technology that made the moon landing possible.

FAQ

1. What was the processing speed of the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer?
   • The Apollo 11 Guidance Computer had a processing speed of just 0.043 MHz, a far cry from the gigahertz speeds we see in today’s smartphones.
2. How much memory did the Apollo 11 computer have compared to a modern smartphone?
   • The Apollo 11 computer operated on a mere 64KB of memory, while today’s smartphones boast storage capacities of up to 1TB, making them about 1 million times greater in terms of memory.
3. Could a modern smartphone handle a moon landing?
   • Although today’s smartphones have vastly superior computing power, they are not designed to handle the extreme conditions of space travel, such as radiation and zero-gravity environments.
4. What kind of software did Apollo 11’s computer use?
   • The Apollo 11 mission utilized software written in AGC4 assembler language, consisting of about 145,000 lines of code. In contrast, a modern Android OS contains around 12-15 million lines of code.
5. How does a basic calculator compare to the Apollo 11 computer?
   • Even a $10 scientific calculator today performs at 2 MHz, making it about 46 times faster than the Apollo 11 Guidance Computer.