Slashdot Mirror
Hubble Repairs Hindered By Antiquated Computer Systems
Andrew Moseman writes "Part of the trouble NASA is encountering while fixing the Hubble Space Telescope comes from the fact that it's been up there for nearly two decades, and therefore carries computer systems long outdated here on Earth. 'One of the main computers that the Goddard team has been struggling with during the repair attempts runs on an Intel 486 chip, the height of 1989 technology.' Many of NASA's long-running missions rely on antiquated systems — the Voyager probes each have about 32k of memory — but the scientists say they can manage."
Isn't it about time the hardware gets an upgrade? I know, they like their known issues and reliabilities, but I guess some Pentiums could be considered 'reliable', couldn't they?
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
well if the Hubble has at least 640k memory it should be fine. . . .right?
"Well it probably runs better than Vista"
I got a few spare cpu and sticks of EDO/SD ram. :P
Maybe I'm just getting old, but a 486 doesn't seem all that big a deal to me. I mean it's not as if it's a completely different architecture to that in use today.
No manufacturer makes the turbo buttons that must be disengaged so Hubble can focus properly.
I mean, what if the sole purpose of the processor is to tell Hubble to "activate servomoter #3 for 2.5 seconds spinning left"? You only need a decent processor if you're going to be doing image compression and other demanding stuff. Otherwise, you're switching to a newer piece of hardware that may not be 20% as reliable, so you can gain a lot more power that you don't need - doh!
Thinkingman.com New Media
I sent my Amiga 500 into orbit in 2001 using a homemade trebuchet (granted, quite a large one) and a very high mountain. It broadcasts the Pinball Dreams high score list every two hours on the hour. The problem is, the last time I went up to do some improvements (long story) I had forgotten a few vital 68000 assembler directives, so I was unable to make the transition from antiquated late-80s desktop computer to cutting-edge ASAT weapon. Too bad, now the 10kT warhead I attached to it is probably just sitting there, twiddling its sub-critical materials.
C'mon really... if it were running Windows it would have failed nearly 2 decades ago and we could have got on with our lives :p
No TP for you! Budget problems...
...32k ought to be enough for any orbital telescope.
...when you think Hubble is an astronomer.
I read the headline and thought there were complications during poor Edwin's double knee replacement.
Sure! How can anyone use more than even 64K (was the saying when the 8086 came out).
Having unlimited cycles and memory creates its own problems. Brooks describes in the mythical man month how increasing the size of a software project introduces errors that slow down development. Having limited cycles forces code optimization, which is why many numerical tools used today are directly based on beautifully optimized fortran 77 routines written when number crunching power was precious.
When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown in to the sea
Many of NASA's long-running missions rely on antiquated systems -- the Voyager probes each have about 32k of memory -- but the scientists say they can manage."
It would be nice if the submitter would add a proposed remedy, like simply sending a service probe out to add some more RAM.
Oh, wait.
Well, I guess when they send a space probe out into the furthest reaches of the solar system, most scientists would expect that they will have to deal with whatever hardware was on board at the time of the launch for the duration of the mission.
Maybe now there's a job for we oldsters who aren't getting hired because we aren't a "good match" for the young environment. I still have a working 486 machine here.
If you're thinking anything along the lines of "Scientific calculations", then that extra computing power would be very, very handy. Those are the people that never, ever seem to run out of a need for more and faster processors, and I doubt these guys are any exception. Anything they can process onboard or compress better for sending back down to us would cut down on things that are probably a lot more scarce like bandwidth
I would have assumed that the telescope does very little processing on the image and sends the data to Earth in a losslessly compressed format. Anybody care to correct those assumptions?
And since 1989 I don't think we've improved upon lossless compression much, but have improved considerably upon cramming more signal in a given bandwidth, so the biggest bang for the buck should be replacing the radios.
But then we have backplane speeds, sensor data rates, etc... heck, maybe the space scientists know what they're doing.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
"*I* am V'ger. The planet Earth must be purged of carbon-based infestation..., " followed by *I* am Nomad. YOU are an infestation.", followed by "*I* are... Hubba Hubba Hubba...You am Carba Carba Carba"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
32KB of RAM is more than many C64 games used. If they can't impress the aliens with 32K, nothing will do.
in such a small space by a good programmer. Most systems today are so encumbered by having been built by toolkits built on toolkits built on metalanguages ad nauseum that a simple "hello world" program now can run hundreds of K of memory.
My compliments to the programmers who still know how to get the most out of the little resources they're working with on these scientific probes.
When they placed it up there, unfortunately some one though it would be a great idea to upgrade to windows. Now the exploit patches have made it nearly impossible to get anything done with this machine.
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
What are they supposed to do? Spend millions to upgrade a spacecraft orbiting the earth for minimal gain?
What about the Voyager probe... what should we do? FedEx doesn't ship to the outer rim of the solar system.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
...quiche.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
Hey NASA, I still have some old Evergreen 486 to Pentium conversion chips in my cpu junk box... pop out that old, tired 486, stick this puppy in the socket, and you're good to go with (the equivalent of) 75mhz Pentium power!
Here's a timely article all about it.
Just let me know if you want them. Some moon rocks or dust in return would be cool, if you've got any to spare, but no problem if not.
I love the end of the article:
"It's really reliable," she said. "There really is no need to upgrade it."
I wish more people understood that.
It's no news that Hubble is operating with technology that dates from the era of its launch.
If you want machines in space to use current tech, then you need to send people with uptodate hardware.
Hint, hint.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Which "part" of the "troubles" and according to who?
Only the Popular Mechanics article even SUGGESTS that age and technological obsolescence might (maybe-sorta-kinda slightly) contribute: "But perhaps finding a few problems should come as no surprise--not only have Hubble's backup systems sat idle for 18 years, but the telescope operates with computer systems long outdated here on Earth."
But even despite the high marks on the BS detector, it concludes with an unmistakable quote from an expert: "Hendrix says that the telescope's computer systems do exactly what they need to do. 'It's really reliable,' she said. 'There really is no need to upgrade it.'"
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Where's the downside? Probably got some clunky legacy, proprietary code from a bloated govt. contract supplier bogging everything down ... think Windows on NASA steroids.
This is a bullshit article. Unfortunately, that has become the norm for Popular Mechanics.
The Intel 486 is hardly some arcane CPU that's so old that nobody knows how to program it. Anybody who can write assembly for modern PCs can write assembly for the 486. And anybody who wants to write in a higher-level language can -- because all the 486 development tools are still easily available.
If you read the article, you'll find that it presents no evidence whatsoever for its assertion that the Hubble's use of a 486 makes it harder to repair. In fact, it reads more like, "The Hubble has a 486, and damn that seems outdated to me! Maybe that's why it's so hard to fix!" Really, that's about the level of the 'logical' argument that you'll find in the article.
... but if NASA had Geek Squad Black Tie Protection Premium, this would be a non-issue.
486 was officially the only space-rated hardware for a very long time. The problem is that when you create a smaller transistor, it becomes far more sensitive to ionizing radiation... the older the die, the larger - and thus less likely to be effected by radiation. More "modern" processors require more shielding.
meh
The software isn't written in COBOL, is it?
if life were based on common sense.
for example, i wouldnt have to type a bunch of gibberish to 'fill out' this post, because slashdot says 'you can type more than that for your comment: filter error'. if life were based on common sense, the simple sentence i wrote, above, would be sufficient.
Seems to me the antiquated systems worked fine before.
Perhaps it's the whippersnappers who are unfamiliar with said systems that are the problem.
If I recall correctly, the chip used to be a 386, and they upgraded it during the first repair mission in 1993.
I was in Ontario at the time working a co-op semester at the National Research Council; they aired the whole repair mission on local TV. It was like watching paint dry in the Sistine Chapel.
It's common knowledge 486s (and their variants) were pulled from the classified wreckage at Roswell NM earlier last century. Trust me, they've had plenty of time to work with those babies.
Glad I could help clarify that.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
Or perhaps XENIX?
Assembler? Bah. Us Real Programmers use a floppy diskette, a needle and a horseshoe magnet.
Bloody kids and their magnetic media. Some of us have used easily repaired, humanly-readable punched cards (IBM-360), which never seemed to have hanging chads. Then there was good old paper tape (PDP-8).
Paper tape needed repairing more often than the punched cards. There was always some good sticky tape and a couple of round hole punches available to repair breaks in the paper tape. Breaks tended to occur a few times per furlong when reading a freshly written tape, but were very rare when writing. Breaks became more frequent on repeat reading of the paper tape, however, and eventually a new copy would need to be written.
Now, you kids get off my retirement home's lawn!
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Real programmers use butterflies.
I'm kind of surprised a 486 survives in space, I was under the impression that consumer grade hardware did not last well when exposed to the 'radiation of space'. (dimply recalls a ham radio satellite that died the death over these issues)
Why is hubble repairs hindered because the cpu is 486? This cpu is still available (I have one of these still in my attic) The tools are still available and of course the team on the ground has the same system and setup for testing. How would a upgraded system make it any better?
If it is dead, swap it out. (Conceptually simple, perhaps difficult to execute esp in space.)
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
Write an emulator for a Sparc T2 and run Solaris on it.
How can you have less than zero computing power?
Dear Popular Mechanics: Memory != CPU. Go back to reviewing cars.
USB 1.0 PORT?! Tthis data transfer will take FOREVER!!!! Oh NOEEEeeeesss!!!
They use "Hardened" CPUs and memory for space.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
I still have that quote on disk somewhere... and it probably was once true. Don't knock Pascal, because what it taught me was not to trust compilers (or more rather, programs that i had not written.)
just my two cents
stine