Slashdot Mirror
Computers in Space Examined
Wil Harris writes "There's an article about the computers used in space missions over at bit-tech this morning. It covers the processor types and speeds, why space stations are less powerful than the laptops that astronauts take up with them and why tape storage is still de rigeur. An interesting and concise couple o' pages."
The fewer components you have, the less likely you are to encounter a failure.
I remember reading something about most space missions are pre-determined and very straight forward, there's no need for difficult maneuver like one has to execute in a X-Wing.
Having said that, there are still plenty of complicated, unexpected problems in space, but these problems have to be analysed and decision made by people on earth.
I guess it's all circumstantial, I can't even operate my 2001 Toyota electric window if the engine's dead, but my 1989 Toyota has no such problem. So if I crashed into a river, I hope I was driving the '89, but if I'm crashing into another car, I want my '01.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
The basic gist of the article is "They don't use more than they really need". Unfortunately, this is not a complete answer.
A company I used to work for discussed using some of their technology with Nasa. One of the things they told us was that they preferred processors a two or three years old because they were afraid of random bit-flippings caused by radiation etc.
(Sadly, I wasn't in on this whole conversation, so I doubt I can effectively answer some of the questions that arise. For example, I'm not sure why the processors had to be a couple of years old. I assume it had to do with shielding or something, but I really don't know. If anybody has insight on this topic, I'd really really like to be enlightened.)
"Derp de derp."
Anybody remember RCA's CDP1802, the weird little CMOS RISC-ish 8-bitter used in Voyager, Viking, and Galileo? These things have been running for decades, despite the radiation they've been subjected to.
Now that's engineering!
If you're referring to the article blurb, the article says this is because they have no need for a newer computer.
If you're referring to the government in general that they don't have ultra-powerful computers, then it's because they don't need them. If Congress can allocate billions and billions to the war in Iraq, I think if there was a serious need for computing power then they'd have purchased it already.
There already are a number of companies working the "niche market". The problem is that the market is relatively small, and the costs are high. Hopefully the advent of commercial spaceflight will bring launch costs down enough that more people will launch, and the space market will expand significantly.
It's not all that different: The government has computers that will work reliably in outer space. The regular people don't.
Orbits are very predictable, and any real-world spacecraft will have a very limited amount of delta-vee with which to maneuver.
Even with realistic sci-fi technology like fusion drive, space battles would still be boring as hell. Read Protector by Larry Niven for a realistic take on space combat.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
My experience with space rated equipment isn't all that extensive or current (I was involved in failure analysis of an AP-101 memory card that had an intermittent failure from the STS-2 and had some interactions with the engineers at IBM's old FSD division, which designed the AP-101s and wrote the flight software) but the article misses one very big point that is the really fascinating aspect (to me) of spacecraft computing hardware and I would have to challenge a number of facts in it.
1. The shuttle launch algorithms and orbital maintenance procedures are a lot more complex than the article makes them out to be. There are several hundred parameters that are continually checked, recorded and processed from tens to hundreds of times per second to make sure the flight path is correct and all systems are operating correctly. Along with monitoring the flight path, the computers were/are largely responsible for the data displayed on the astronaut/pilot's CRT displays in the cockpit.
2. It is my understanding, that in the early shuttle missions at least, there were multiple code loads during flight. The original AP-101s had a maximum of 256K words of 32 bit memory, which was enough for a separate launch, orbit and landing image, each which had to be loaded into the AP-101s before the next phase of flight. There have been issues with loading software or receiving and loading new software from the ground.
3. The original AP-101s were designed for the F-15 and could be considered "state of the art" for the early 1970s in terms of processing power and memory size. They are capable of about five MIPs and had a full megabyte of battery backed memory. They were chosen because they had been qualified for the high G-Loads and temperature extremes of the fighters. While the systems used on the shuttle were of the same design as used on the F-15 (and later the B-1B), they were inspected to much higher standards and all failures had to be resolved down to the point of having a test in place to prevent the failure from escaping the manufacturing/test processes as well root cause action plans at the component supplier.
The memory card failure that I was involved with was caused by a solder ball inside a metal RAM chip package. During the shuttle's ascent, vibration caused the solder ball to break free and intermittently touch the surface of the chip inside the package. The problem was extremely difficult to reproduce and was found by placing a microphone on the chip package and tapping the chip with the eraser end of a pencil. Chips with this solder ball defect "rang" differently than ones without this problem. After the ball was discovered and proven (by cutting open the chip package), every chip used in a shuttle AP-101 was tap tested by IBM to ensure no other solder balls were hidden inside the packages.
4. I don't know where that picture of the "Part of the AP-101S" came from as there is no way that is flight qualified hardware for an F-15, let alone a shuttle orbiter. Wire reworks are simply not allowed in high-G, high vibration environments and it looks like the surface mount components are hand soldered into place. I think this is prototype hardware that somebody pawned off on the author.
5. I don't understand where the idea that space systems having to be low power came from. The AP-101s were real power hogs (all their logic is bipolar) and were in fact glycol cooled. A significant fraction of the orbiter power generation is devoted to the compter systems (as well as the spacecraft cooling capabilies).
What is always interesting is looking at how the software for manned spacecraft is developed. A big joke is the Mars Observer and the mix up between English and Metric units, but think about how often you've heard about a software failure on board the shuttle - or any manned spacecraft for that matter. In Apollo, there were none and the software for the CM and LM computers was wire wrapped on a bed of nails instead of being burned into
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
As much as you want to kick around the lowly PC, there are many instances where replacing exotic hardware with commodity hardware (which is by far more tested and debugged and supported due to market penetration than exotic hardware).
Yeah yeah, I know it's supposed to be funny, not serious- but thermal conductivity in a vacuum is of course zero, and chips are probably not anywhere near ideal radiators.
Govt never flew supercomputers into space, land based they still have vastly superior computing power. I doubt many of us has a multi-teraflop computer in thier basement.
Space has always been about reliability, can't repair much when you are up there. All the processing happens Earth bound. The ratio has gotten *bigger* as time has gone on (look at the top 100 or top 500 supercomputing lists) - what we can run at home is *nothing* like what the large govt installations run. Even if you had the money the local power board isn't going to run your power needs into a residential zone, let alone you have a large staff 24 hours a day to maintain your l337 system.
------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
There hasnt been a single instance of proven cosmic ray bit flip on ground level.
And for bit-flips of other causes: The bit-failure rate per mbit has dropped a few orders of magnitudes tha last 10 or 15 years.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?