Slashdot Mirror
NASA Parts Scroungers Resort To eBay For Parts
beggs writes: "The New York Times is running this article about NASA using ebay and other web resources to find for sale stock piles of old hardware it needs to keep the Space Shuttle fleet up and running -- things like 8086 chips from pre-PC days!" Come to think of it, this might be a better way to take care of most NASA bidding anyhow.
Couldn't Transmeta chips (which are programmable to a degree) or FPGA's be an answer in the longer term? Obviously, a lot of the reason for requiring 8086 chips is down to form factor etc, but couldn't converters be made to help out?
Aren't most mission-critical business systems already taking this into account?
We're running an HP3000 running MPE here. Most of the applications running on it are running code nearly 30 years old. HP is phasing out the 3000, but I'm guessing that the platform will remain runnable for at least another 10 years (5 years of legacy support from HP, and 3rd party beyond that).
I agree with you the breakneck pace of change is kind of nutty, but I don't think the impact is as dire as you claim outside the PC arena.
Plus, some of the changes being made are more than cosmetic Mhz changes -- the increased processing power brings real new functionality. If you don't upgrade, your competitors might, leaving you behind in terms of performance and functionality.
I used to have the same problem in the Navy. Ever try and find a D.C. power supply for a VT100, or how about a head assembly for a RL02 disk drive? I finally started scrounging in local collage electronic surplus piles to keep my systems running. Just goes to show that systems made 20-30 years ago were built to last.
i have very strong apathetic feelings...
They could get an IBM Mainframe running Linux , then partition it out to 40,000 virtual instances, and have each one running Bochs to emulate all the 8086 chips they need.
You know, it would probably still be cheaper then maintining what they have now in the way of hardware.
Problem is that they would need a third booster to get it and the power plant off the ground....
So either the contract has expired and the shuttles have exceeded their lifespan, or Intel has broken its contract.
The the "design lifetime" of the shuttle was around 100 flights. Based on this the most of the shuttles have only burned a quarter to a third of their design lifetimes.
On the other hand, the shuttles have been flying for over 20 years, the first flight was in 1981. NASA was, initally at least, anticipating a much higher number of flights per year, in theory this means that they were really expecting to take them out of service during the early to mid-nineties. I remember hearing 15 years as being the expected design lifetime back in the '80's.
I guess you take their pick, depending on how you want to look at it, they're only a quarter of the way through their design lifetime, or they're outlived their design lifetime by five years (possibly more).
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
Up until about 4 years ago, I used to work for a major/small satellite company. One of my last tasks was to update the processor board used in many satellites... you guessed it, it was based on the 8086. What was my upgrade? I added an 8087 to it! These math coprocessors are even rarer - we bought the last 50 bare die in existence to eventually custom-package in a special high-density radiation shielding ceramic package.
:)
It was about that time that I decided that the company was going in the hole. It's not that the 8086's were particularily good processors... True, they are made with a bigger geometry and suck more power -- things that make them generally more radiation resistant than anything produced in the 1990's. But, they were never designed to tolerate radiation. (NASA isn't stupid - they have high-performance radiation tolerant parts like the RAD6000).
Since my company wasn't making even minimal internal investments (they had a '386 based system that they built but never applied power), I decided that, for my career, I should leave. I notice now that they are hiring people with 5 years of PowerPC experience -- eventually they must have decided to get with the times, but since they didn't keep their employees current, they shot themselves in the foot and now have to hire outsiders.
p.s. I'm back on the job market - anyone need a kick-ass PowerPC engineer?
HIV Crosses Species Barrier... into Muppets
In this article. I think it is just probably cheaper to find the replacement parts than to redesign the system again, it was probably designed well, robust and stable, unlike most modern systems. The engineers trust it, and perhaps are working on something to replace it eventually, but anything new would need a lot of testing, probably about 10 years. Maybe they'll upgrade to a 386 or a 486 soon.
I'm a little surprised by the claim of "wings" and "fuselage sections". Most military aircraft have a design lifespan that is limited by structural wear and tear. You can replace almost everything else, but structural components are not usually upgradeable.
For the B-52s this means that the remaining usable B-52s are the G and H models. All of the older ones have been scrapped because the structural components of the fuselage and wings have too many hours on them. They are past the point where they can be safely patched. But it is normal to replace electronics, engines, mechanical components, etc. New systems are designed with SLEPs (System Life Extension Program) in mind. You build a rugged frame and anticipate things like new engine technology in 20 years.
Another example is the U-2. These were also introduced in the 1950's. But the current flying aircraft were from a second major production run in the 1980's. These were designed with a mechanical lifespan of 75,000 flight hours. Most of the present systems still have 80% of their usable life remaining, so you will see flying U-2s for a long time. They are now undergoing a radical replacement of windshields and cockpit electronics. The new cockpits replace antique mechanical guages with a triple flatscreen computerized display system. The new cockpits are much lighter, more upgradable, and much easier to use while flying. (The U-2 is perhaps the most difficult airplane to fly that is in regular use. It spends almost the entire flight near the limit of losing control and with a cockpit environment of staggering hostility. For example, it flies at altitudes where the temperature is -85F and the pressure is so low that water boils at under 75F. Lose pressure and your blood boils out of your lungs. So the pilot spends the entire flight in a custom pressure/space suit. So every bit of improvement in flight aids to the pilot is welcomed.)
There are tons of people suggesting that NASA use current chips (Pentium, Transmeta, etc) to emulate the 8086. That's not the issue. The software would be easy to port or emulate, etc. The reason they use old chips is that they can go into space. The electromagnetic radiation as seen in space would totally fry a chip with a small fab. 8086s are large enough that their transistors aren't shorted. Sure, they could shield the computers, but that's expensive and largely unnecessary for the applications they're using them for.