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comes from the fact that it's been up there for nearly two decades, and therefore carries computer systems long outdated here on Earth.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."
well if the Hubble has at least 640k memory it should be fine. . . .right?
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.
They need to have the chips hardened for radiation. I'm not sure what the process entails, but they don't seem to do it with chips younger than 10 years or so. /. did a pretty good article on this awhile back I think.
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.
I would imagine it's a little more difficult than simply popping out the CPU and putting in a new one. If you were tasked with upgrading a 486 here on Earth, how many components do you think you'd be able to recycle into the new machine? You'd end up replacing the whole thing, maybe keeping the HDD around just long enough to get your data off it.
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
They need to have the chips hardened for radiation. I'm not sure what the process entails
I would hope it involves putting the everything in a radiation shielded box. I could see how smaller chip architectures might be more susceptible to radiation, but a decade is enough time to figure that out and use exterior shielding instead of hardening. Sure that might be much more difficult, but if you can't handle difficult don't work at NASA. Of course with a Hubble sized budget, there is no excuse for not having several back-up sets of the non-custom parts that might not be available in a few years. Computer components had exhibited that high turn over rate for plenty of time before Hubble launched.
We are all just people.
No TP for you! Budget problems...
I actually don't think you can realistically shield effectively against some types of high energy particles. Nuclear reactors use 6 ft of concrete to shield against neutrons. There's higher energy particles than neutrons in space. I'm sure that external shielding plays a large role in it, but there's probably more to it. The wikipedia article on radiation hardening is actually very good. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiation_hardening&oldid=235697687
...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).
It takes several years to develop a radiation hardened version of circuits, in addition to being very expensive. About the most modern such processor is based on the PowerPC 750, aka Apple's G3.
Also, as far as I understand it, processors using smaller processes are much more difficult to harden, which significantly limits modernization.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
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.
at 10,000 a pound to launch the shuttle, weight reduction is most important. sending up lead computer cases because hardening a processor is hard is not an option when plastic weighs several pounds less.
Also up until 3-4 years ago the hubble was going to be shut down in the next year or two and was only extended later. Unlike the mars rovers the hubble's life won't magical extend.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
"...decade is enough time to figure that out and use exterior shielding instead of hardening. "
It's a fallacy to assume technology can solve every problem, or that solving it a specific way can be 'figured out'.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
Why bother with heavy shielding when you can just make the transistors big enough to not be flippable by single stray particals? Thick shielding might prevent 99.999% of dangerous bit flipping radiation from getting through, but what about that last tiny bit, you're going to need extra circuitry to detect errors in the processors circuitry... and everything starts getting more complicated, and you end up back where you started. In space, simpler is better.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
It's already running on an upgrade. The 486 was installed in 1999 as part of STS-103.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Servicing_Mission_3A
IIRC, the 486 was chosen specifically for the physical size of the data paths? Or the dies that cast the chips themselves? Either way, they were large enough that passing radation would be less likely to corrupt data that it would on the newer, smaller pentium based chips.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
A quote from the famous "Real programmers don't use Pascal" article written in 1983. Some of the most awesome Real Programmers of all work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Many of them know the entire operating system of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by heart. With a combination of large ground-based Fortran programs and small spacecraft-based assembly language programs, they are able to do incredible feats of navigation and improvisation-- hitting ten-kilometer wide windows at Saturn after six years in space, repairing or bypassing damaged sensor platforms, radios, and batteries. Allegedly, one Real Programmer managed to tuck a pattern matching program into a few hundred bytes of unused memory in a Voyager spacecraft that searched for, located, and photographed a new moon of Jupiter. The current plan for the Galileo spacecraft is to use a gravity assist trajectory past Mars on the way to Jupiter. This trajectory passes within 80 +/- 3 kilometers of the surface of Mars. Nobody is going to trust a Pascal program (or Pascal programmer) for navigation to these tolerances. If you have never read it, it's still a great read (at least for us old-timers). http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html
Most rad hardened CPUs are RISC (powerPC, SPARC), there are very few options for x86 based rad hardened CPUs. Mil-spec wise Intel is doing well with their newer stuff (dual-core, etc.), but none of it has made it to the rad hardened world yet. The RAD750 is pretty much 'state of art', running at 166MHz.
Replacing an old 486 with one of these would require rewriting / compiling all the code running on them. Probably not enough of a performance gain in relation to the cost / risk of basically rewriting the code base from scratch.
A quote from the famous "Real programmers don't use Pascal" article written in 1983.
Some of the most awesome Real Programmers of all work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Many of them know the entire operating system of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by heart. With a combination of large ground-based Fortran programs and small spacecraft-based assembly language programs, they are able to do incredible feats of navigation and improvisation-- hitting ten-kilometer wide windows at Saturn after six years in space, repairing or bypassing damaged sensor platforms, radios, and batteries. Allegedly, one Real Programmer managed to tuck a pattern matching program into a few hundred bytes of unused memory in a Voyager spacecraft that searched for, located, and photographed a new moon of Jupiter.
The current plan for the Galileo spacecraft is to use a gravity assist trajectory past Mars on the way to Jupiter. This trajectory passes within 80 +/- 3 kilometers of the surface of Mars. Nobody is going to trust a Pascal program (or Pascal programmer) for navigation to these tolerances.
If you have never read it, it's still a great read (at least for us old-timers).
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html
Hey - don't forget the folks at the NASA research facility at Langley :(
I am open source, and Linux baby!
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.
The US government had a standing order to chip brokers for all the 8087 math coprocessors that could be had. They are used in some military radar units and there is no replacement available.
.
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"
Actually, some sorts of shielding make things worse. Moderate amounts of shielding just end up providing targets for the really high energy particles, which releases a big cloud of moderate energy particles on impact. The secondary radiation is both more abundant and more likely to interact with the stuff on the inside, and so causes a bigger problem. For space applications, there are intermediate amounts of shielding that will actually *increase* the total dose. (This is the case for cosmic rays, not solar flares; the latter can be fairly effectively shielded against, but is frequently less of a concern.) If you're not willing to put *large* amounts of mass around the thing to be shielded, it's often impossible to improve things all that much.
Hardening often consists of simple changes that are nonetheless expensive because they involve changes to the whole production line -- things like rating all the transistors for a noticeably higher voltage, to reduce the likelihood of a radiation-induced latchup event. As chip voltages get lower, this gets harder. Other changes include things like using isotopically pure boron in your dopants -- boron comes in two common isotopes, 10B and 11B. 11B is relatively immune to cosmic radiation, but 10B will fision when hit -- releasing secondary ionizing particles that cause a much greater problem than the cosmic ray by itself would. So rad-hard chips end up made with (expensive) depleted boron.
Combine these, and you see why it's difficult to find a decent selection of rad-hard chips, and also why an up-to-date radiation hardened CPU can cost over $100k each -- and also why you nonetheless need them, and can't really substitute anything short of a few tons of shielding.
From reading the article, it didn't sound like they could even do upgrades, even if they wanted to (although I suppose they probably could salvage the mirror and build a new system around it). That actually surprises me a bit, since they knew this would be a long running mission and it is within range to be worked on. I know these days as a computer engineer, my bosses are always telling me to design for the future with upgrades in mind, but maybe that wasn't as big a priority back then (perhaps because each doubling of computer power is so much more massive now, and makes more of a difference than it did back then).
Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it.
What you want may well be impossible. There are no magical materials right now to do what you want. Cosmic rays in the range TeV can't be stopped with a box that can be affordably launched, much less fit into the satellite. It's easier to use chips that are designed to handle them.
NASA already has a backup computer, on which are two independent circuits to do the same thing. Side "B" that is on the Hubble right now is handling things right now, after side "A" quit working.
NASA is putting the last of their spare parts on the Hubble right now, after which, there are no more short of restarting production, which isn't going to happen affordably. They made a lot of replacement parts which were gradually used as there were servicing missions.
Why *should* it be upgraded? I don't bother upgrading the microprocessor in my thermostat, it seems to work fine.
Assembler? Bah. Us Real Programmers use a floppy diskette, a needle and a horseshoe magnet.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
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
"PNG is somewhat better than TIFF last time I checked"
Most people learn at quite a young age that the word 'better' doesn't really mean anything on its own. Better at what? Better at supporting non-RGB colour spaces? Better at supporting RGB with more than 8bits per colour, or even floating point values? Storing multiple images in a single file? No, png supportings none of these things that tiff does. If you're creating computer graphics for UI's, websites etc, png is probably a better choice, as that's more what it's designed for, but there are many other uses for storing images outside of this scope that tiff fits much better than png. As far as compression's concerned, PNG supports DEFLATE, which existed before PNG did, and the same with TIFF and its supported LZW compression (not that there's anything stopping you compressing either with either).
To sum up: better at what?
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Can't they just remodulate the shield harmonics or reverse the polarity of the neutron flow or something?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
I had the opportunity to work on a radiation hardened computer for a satellite. This was in the late 90's, and was probably much like the Hubble Telescope processor. We went through endless simulations and scenarios to try and second guess every conceivable error or fault possible. Bit flips were easily handled, but double bit failures were not. When we had double bit flips we had to reload all the software and data anew.
The equipment we used to design and support the onboard system was modern (for that time), but the chips for the simulators were on breadboards that were hand wired for much of it. It was ugly, but there were no available alternatives at the time that were rad-hardened.
One of the reasons particles like neutrons are hard to stop is that they have no charge and don't react with the electromagnetic fields that bind matter together. You basically need a collision between the neutron and an atomic nucleus to stop it.
A particle that doesn't interact electromagnetically, however, is (if I'm not mistaken) less likely to interfere with electronic equipment. Which is not to say hard-to-stop radiation like neutron radiation does no damage at all, but I'd be curious to know whether it's a concern at all for satellites.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
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
They need to have the chips hardened for radiation. I'm not sure what the process entails
I think we went over this not to long ago with one of the Mars craft, or we were it was in the thread about the dangers of outsourcing DoD hardware? (or was that digg..) Regardless, it's generally just tech a few years older that's proven itself without major flaws... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening#Radiation-hardening_techniques http://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part1.html And of course if your in the market for such kit... www.honeywell.com/radhard/
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Good God man, if we do that, we could turn all matter into doesn't matter, then nobody will give a fuck.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Actually, the P5 Over drives had the FOOF bug. You need "Reliable" type tech.
You do not need a significant increase in computational power. You need to increase reliability. If your OS goes bad, just re-read the whole thing from ROM. If a large portion of the program/OS is in rom, you dont need a lot of ram, just to store variables.
Just how smart do you think a microwave's CPU is?
So what are they using on the Battlestar Galactica? I bet it's really neat.
Interstitial spaces are filled with cream.
Why use a heavy metal box to stop the cosmic rays or solar flare protons? They are both positively charged. Just put a positive charge around the computer box, and negative charge around a few "lightning rods" a few feet away and let magnetic forces do the rest. You don't have to stop the high energy particles, you just have to convince them to miss the few square inches of delicate electronics. Launch weight radiation shielding is something that NASA is going to have to tackle soon enough anyway if we ever want to leave our magnetosphere for more than about a week. Why not test it on a modern Hubble CPU, while keeping the remaining legacy chip as a back up?
Young man, in this forum we respect the laws of physics.
Go and find out how strong a magnetic field is required to deflect a proton with 1GeV of kinetic energy by 1 cm over a distance of, say, 2 m. Since you're obviously technically literate, that shouldn't be too difficult.
Hint: the answer is, "An impractically strong field is required, by a couple of orders of magnitude." Ever wondered why CERN use helium-cooled magnets which way tens of tons in their beamline?
Pirate Party UK
External shielding is often a bad idea for space hardware. The shielding is heavy (as it must be to stop particles), and itself becomes radio-active over time as it is exposed to wonderful effects like gamma rays. We get this free shielding of miles of atmosphere, here on Earth, and we get even more shielding from solar radiation half of the day. (The technical term for this is 'night-time'). That Earth shielding also gets rid of a lot of the more intense interstellar radiation as well.
You can't replace that with a NASA bright idea. You need to work with the physics and chemistry available to you. And frankly, Hubble was not intended to last this long without regular, Space Shuttle provided maintenance. It's a tribute to the original engineering that it's survived as well as it has.
Definitely, the point being that you get the most scattering in collisions between objects of near equal mass. The closest mass neutral particle to a neutron is a hydrogen atom (with it's approximately 1 electron associated with one proton), and so the important oil-well petrophysical measurement "neutron density" is actually a measure of the mean number of hydrogen atoms per unit volume in the measured area. In contrast, the so-called "bulk density" petrophysical measurement uses gamma ray photons with an energy that gives each photon a comparable momentum with an electron, so the "bulk density" tool is actually giving you a measure of the number of electrons (and hence protons) per unit volume.
It might sound useless to you, but I have to explain this at least once per quarter year to colleagues trying to perform a "quick look" analysis of a set of wireline logs from an oilwell under evaluation. The teaching of these skills is riddled with such obfuscations.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"