Slashdot Mirror


NASA Finds Cause of Voyager 2 Glitch

astroengine writes "Earlier this month, engineers suspended Voyager 2's science measurements because of an unexpected problem in its communications stream. A glitch in the flight data system, which formats information for radioing to Earth, was believed to be the problem. Now NASA has found the cause of the issue: it was a single memory bit that had erroneously flipped from a 0 to a 1. The cause of the error is yet to be understood, but NASA plans to reset Voyager's memory tomorrow, clearing the error."

283 comments

  1. Sometimes, if you do things right... by BlackErtai · · Score: 5, Funny

    Nobody knows you've done anything at all.

    --
    -|BlackErtai|-
    1. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by jamesh · · Score: 1

      That is one of my favorite quotes from Futurama!

    2. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 5, Funny

      like burning down a bar for the insurance money

    3. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by thhamm · · Score: 0, Redundant

      "So, do you know what i'll do before i do it?"
      "Yes."
      "And if i do something different?"
      "Then i don't know that."
      "Cool, cool ..."

    4. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing.

    5. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I keep telling my boss that, but he doesn't listen.

    6. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as long as you make it look like an electrical thing

    7. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 1

      Not too hard. Just cut off the coating of the romex that touches a stud

    8. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if you make it look like an electrical thing

    9. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Uhhhh - touches a stud? In a wood frame building? That isn't going to give you a fire. Wooden 2x4 won't carry a current, and it's not grounded anyway. Ever seen widowmaker wiring, from like 80 years ago? A lot of wires end up touching something in the attic. No big deal, unless you run a ground wire up there.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    10. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      As an ex firefighter, anything that isn't obviously arson, with no clear cause, will be reported as an electrical fault.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    11. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As someone who's father is a current fire investigator, anything that doesn't appear to have a clear cause, will be reported as such and investigated as arson.

      Don't know how long you were in suppression for in the past, but it probably wasn't long enough to know about prevention and investigation in the future.

    12. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by dov_0 · · Score: 1

      The report I referred to was the arson investigation. As a former firefighter and not just a proud relative, I knew my job well. We used to have training setting things on fire in different ways, then putting it out and studying the evidence. We had to be able to spot evidence in the heat of the moment so we could preserve it for later investigations. Trust me though, child of an investigator. Fires which still give no real clues after an investigation, are put down as electrical faults.

      --
      sudo mount --milk --sugar /cup/tea /mouth /etc/init.d/relax start
    13. Re:Sometimes, if you do things right... by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 1

      ok just add a little gasoline and cut off the protection of the wire inside the romex

  2. Really? by atomicthumbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The cause of the error is yet to be understood

    Let me guess: cosmic ray. Is it really that hard? What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

    --
    http://pinopsida.com
    1. Re:Really? by srothroc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Age? Voyager is hardly brand new.

    2. Re:Really? by pclminion · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Let me guess: cosmic ray. Is it really that hard? What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

      When you have a probe billions of miles from Earth, with no hope of ever physically retrieving it, and something weird happens, I don't think the first thing you do is start making assumptions.

    3. Re:Really? by mozumder · · Score: 3, Funny

      Let me guess: cosmic ray. Is it really that hard? What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

      Incredibly annoying alien hackers?

    4. Re:Really? by sznupi · · Score: 4, Funny

      V'Ger is unwilling to just transfer the data to its Creator...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Really? by Peach+Rings · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's pretty amazing that they even were able to track the problem down to a particular bit. No general purpose operating system has anything even remotely having dreams of approaching that level of reliability and stability. It's nice to see the strengths of bare-metal hacking demonstrated in this bleary age of big-button-pushing Java and .NET.

    6. Re:Really? by BitZtream · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Its also extremely important to note that not a single item you own is made to the specifications that Voyagers were made, even though made over 30 years ago.

      Its also rather important to note that as unstable as most OSes are, they are several million times more complex than the code Voyager 1 and 2 run.

      Finally, joke about Windows all you want ... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.

      Its also entirely feasable to find 1 stuck or flipped bit even using Java and .NET, you just have to actually understand the inner workings of this code which is not something pretty much any developer working in these environments has time to do these days.

      Both things may be computers that run code and use electricity to do so, but thats about where the shared bits end. These guys have been using the same code for 30+ years ... they kinda know how it works and all its quirks at this point.

      With all that said ... you're still right, its freaky impressive.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually it was a metric "0" that got switched to an imperial "1".

    8. Re:Really? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Impressive how they established this one bit with certainty - a command for transmitting back, basically, RAM content? Or at least checksums for various parts of it, narrowing down the location? (what about the storage from which it will be restored?) Would that even work considering the gibberish transmitted?

      If that was determined based largely on a copy at hand - what if some other bit is also wrong?...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    9. Re:Really? by ianezz · · Score: 4, Funny

      M-x butterfly. Cosmic rays, but on purpose.

    10. Re:Really? by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's pretty amazing that they even were able to track the problem down to a particular bit.

      To be fair, Voyager doesn't have many bits in its memory :). Tracking down a bad bit is much easier when you have 4k of RAM than when you have 4GB of RAM.

    11. Re:Really? by T+Murphy · · Score: 2, Funny

      A tiny cosmic spatula.

    12. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      One could argue it's about a million times easier

    13. Re:Really? by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: cosmic ray. Is it really that hard? What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

      Incredibly annoying alien hackers?

      That's what I heard, and through a very reliable source

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    14. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      1048576 times easier, you mean. we don't want your SI kind here.

    15. Re:Really? by rjch · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: cosmic ray. Is it really that hard? What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

      • Age of equipment.
      • Electrical short.
      • Space debris.
      • Alien hackers.

      Pick one. Any one.

    16. Re:Really? by angelwolf71885 · · Score: 0

      and people think it will be the robots WE are building that will enslave us

    17. Re:Really? by rew · · Score: 1

      I can hope, can't I?

    18. Re:Really? by Rivalz · · Score: 1

      Y2K

    19. Re:Really? by rew · · Score: 1

      It's happened before. Last time they just rearranged the code so that the particular bit that had become stuck-at-0 was required to be 0. Might have been a mars mission and not voyager.

    20. Re:Really? by dakameleon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally, joke about Windows all you want ... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.

      Let me just OT for a moment here: if you didn't install any drivers or software... it'd just sit there, period, and you wouldn't be too happy about this slightly warm expensive paperweight you just bought. What on earth is the point of a computer without additional software?

      --
      Man who leaps off cliff jumps to conclusion.
    21. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then don't use SI prefixes.

    22. Re:Really? by rew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Certainty? I don't think so.

      I think they simulated Voyager with this bit flipped and saw the same output (that is transmitted to earth).

      I hope they tried to flip ALL bits, and found that only this one bit would give the results seen. If you would follow the code and find and test just a few likely places, I'd expect a few more unexpected places to give the same results.

      The quick fix is to send the correct byte to the craft and hope that fixes it. If the bit has become stuck in the new position, they will have to do a remote firmware upgrade (with the code rewritten to fit the stuck-at value...) Other memory cells may have broken down in the mean time, but with a stuck-at value that is correct for the current version of the firmware, which you won't know until you try them....

    23. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyway, it ought to be enough for everybody!

    24. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      we use a binary postfix that is identical to a SI prefix

    25. Re:Really? by Dthief · · Score: 1

      alien hackers

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    26. Re:Really? by Zoxed · · Score: 1

      >> The cause of the error is yet to be understood

      Just to clarify: this was the submitters comment: it does not appear in the source article.

    27. Re:Really? by rew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      • Age of equipment.

      You're the second one to suggest "age". When humans die of age, that's some failure in the human body that's common when people grow old. That's when we say someone died of old age. However when human made devices die, there is always a component that has failed. When you have a 5 year old mobile telephone that dies, you say it died of old age, and replace it. That's because you don't care and replacing it costs less than finding out the root cause for the failure.

      When a properly designed computer flips a bit, SOMETHING happened. We may never know, it might have been a cosmic ray. But don't you think that they would use space-certified RAM chips for such a project?

      In any case, I don't know what memory technology voyager uses. The (slightly) more modern space shuttles used magnetic core memory for essential systems. These are not affected by cosmic rays. If it isn't magnetic core, then it is likely to be static RAM. This too is not easily modified by a cosmic ray. Modern DRAM however is easily affected by cosmic rays. But exactly because of that, it's not likely that they used DRAM.

      In 1977, when the voyagers were launched, DRAM had been commercially available for 7 years.... This might have been too new for NASA to design into their new babies....

    28. Re:Really? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      The comparison is against Voyager that also have software installed, but where Windows is so much more complex and still with potential to run that stable. But yes, of course that complexity also drives the hw requirements.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    29. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I've diagnosed a single bit-error in a system with 1GB RAM based on the corruption it created in files. That bit error even was intermittent, with only a selection of surrounding bit patterns triggering it and then not all the time. It is not magic, folks. You look at the data which deviates from the expectations and look for patterns. Then you use your knowledge of how the system works to establish theories about the possible causes and finally you run tests to see if the kind of deviation occurs that the suspected cause would trigger.

    30. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that a bare Windows system is already much more complex and performs many more calculations than the Voyager computer, yet it still runs perfectly stable. That last bit I don't actually believe though. I would not trust a Windows system to run until 2040 without a critical problem which requires hands-on maintenance.

    31. Re:Really? by God+of+Lemmings · · Score: 2, Informative

      I would imagine that it was relatively easy. Voyager has not only a small amount of memory (about 541kb) about 10% of the command system's memory is dedicated to fault protection. Read here: Jet Propulsion Laboratory

      --
      Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
    32. Re:Really? by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Select 0
      Select 0
      Select 0
      Select 0

      Guys, there's something wrong.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    33. Re:Really? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Cosmic Rays? Don't be so silly. It was obviously the Gremlins.....in SPAAAAAAAAACE!

      There's. some. one, on the extendable boom.......some. thing. on the boom!

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    34. Re:Really? by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Funny

      Finally, joke about Windows all you want ... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.

      Yeah, the problems only come when you try to use the keyboard or mouse.

    35. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and they design these things specifically for operation in space. Single bit upsets SHOULD NOT be a problem which is probably why they are confused.

    36. Re:Really? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      I would not trust a Windows system to run until 2040 without a critical problem which requires hands-on maintenance.

      I doubt that this is the first time they've had to perform diagnostics or maintenance on Voyager.

    37. Re:Really? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Clearly you missed the word "about".

    38. Re:Really? by Tapewolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      In any case, I don't know what memory technology voyager uses. The (slightly) more modern space shuttles used magnetic core memory for essential systems. These are not affected by cosmic rays. If it isn't magnetic core, then it is likely to be static RAM. This too is not easily modified by a cosmic ray.

      I got curious and looked it up: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html

      ...apparently it uses Plated Wire memory which I had not heard of before, but seems to be a relative of core store.

    39. Re:Really? by BeardedChimp · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      I missed the original posting and found this post.

      I'd have thought a cosmic ray flipped an important bit.

      It has no modding on it but the person who replied

      Pissaw, young'uns don't know anything anymore;

      Was modded +5 informative!
      Looks like its time for some retrospective modding.

    40. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I read this chapter on the design of the voyagers' onboard computers correctly, they do use CMOS DRAM.

    41. Re:Really? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Binary postfix? As far as I was aware, the G in GB prefixes the B...

    42. Re:Really? by meglon · · Score: 1

      It's not that easy... I have less than 4k memory left, and the doctors still haven't figured out the problem.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    43. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought you needed a magnetic monopole to flip core memory...

    44. Re:Really? by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is that that part of the onion is not fake - the responses people make are, the but news they are responding to is real.

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    45. Re:Really? by Chris+Snook · · Score: 1

      Hardware that old uses sufficiently large components such that the mundane cosmic rays that regularly strike earth and earth-orbiting satellites are generally not strong enough to flip a bit. While it's certainly possible that one got a lucky shot, it's also quite possible that the hardware is failing, or that Voyager 2 is encountering much more energetic cosmic rays at the edge of the protective range of the Sun's magnetic field. Assuming the reset works, it'll be interesting to see how it fares as it flies further from the Sun's protection.

      --
      There's no failure quite as dissatisfying as a complete and total solution to the wrong problem.
    46. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you know? Bits are read right-to-left.

    47. Re:Really? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      No difference. The test loop just executes more times.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    48. Re:Really? by RichiH · · Score: 1

      I assume they did in fact try a _lot_ of combinations. Testing all of them is probably impossible due to the complexity of even the "basic" system they sent flying in 1977, but I assume they went though this stuff _carefully_.

      What I find more amazing than locating the actual problem is that they can reset the thing over all that distance and be reasonably certain that it will come back to life.

    49. Re:Really? by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Tracking down bits is probably always easier is you have intimate knowledge of a system.

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    50. Re:Really? by jibjibjib · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they've performed all the maintenance over the network for 30 years, and work around hardware problems, without ever having to go up there and replace hardware or boot from external media. No general-purpose computer has that sort of reliability.

    51. Re:Really? by unts · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm middle-endian, you insensitive clod.

    52. Re:Really? by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Having to replace hardware on commodity computers is hardly due to Windows supposedly being unreliable or complex. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend Windows here. The whole comparison is apples to oranges, it's silly to expect a consumer grade computer to last 30 years even if it had the mythical perfectly fault free OS.

      The main argument that I feel does work in this case is mean time between power cycles. A Windows box really starts to struggle after a couple of months.

    53. Re:Really? by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      That's the beauty of simplicity. If you can do all you need in 4k, why use 4GB and a fancy GUI? Not every computer should look/act like a desktop. Too many projects go for the big, bells & whistles, all-inclusive approach to software. Sometimes small and light and just enough is the better option. The ATM guys could learn something here. And maybe car manufacturers too.

    54. Re:Really? by kinnell · · Score: 1

      You're the second one to suggest "age". When humans die of age, that's some failure in the human body that's common when people grow old. That's when we say someone died of old age. However when human made devices die, there is always a component that has failed. When you have a 5 year old mobile telephone that dies, you say it died of old age, and replace it. That's because you don't care and replacing it costs less than finding out the root cause for the failure.

      When a properly designed computer flips a bit, SOMETHING happened. We may never know, it might have been a cosmic ray. But don't you think that they would use space-certified RAM chips for such a project?

      Semiconductor devices deteriorate over time due to dopant diffusion in the substrate. It's entirely possible for that memory bit to flip because the threshold voltages have drifted too far out of specification over the years.

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    55. Re:Really? by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 1

      >But don't you think that they would use space-certified RAM chips for such a project?

      They did, but cosmic rays come in a wide range of intensities, from feeble all the way up to having enough energy in one photon to make (baseball analogy ahead) a baseball jump.

    56. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When ... something weird happens, I don't think the first thing you do is start making assumptions.

      You must be new here. Or maybe you have suffered a bit-flip caused by cosmic radiation.

    57. Re:Really? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      Finally, joke about Windows all you want ... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.

      Which would be fine, if the only thing I ever wanted to do with a computer was play solitaire and occassionally wonder what 2 + 2 was.

      The whole purpose of having an operating system is so that you can install software and peripherals to make the computer useful for doing something. If I need to be that careful about offending my OS in the process of getting something done, I'll switch to another OS.

    58. Re:Really? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

      XORing with 00000100 in space.

    59. Re:Really? by TuringTest · · Score: 1

      Play minesweeper?

      --
      Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
    60. Re:Really? by eulernet · · Score: 1

      No, the problem is when you connect your computer to the Internet.

      I remember the one time when I installed Windows XP (without SP), and launched a windows update.
      My computer crashed while downloading SP2, meaning that worms installed on compromised Windows were attacking every computer in the world in less than 15 minutes.
      It's difficult to protect yourself when the protection needs more time to install than to be attacked.

    61. Re:Really? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      I think he was more pointing out that barring hardware defects, 99.9% of the crashes that Windows experiences are caused by software doing something it wasn't supposed to do, or badly written drivers. The OS itself is pretty damned stable.

      And I'd tend to agree. Windows 95 or 98 were perfectly capable of running (for 41 1/2 days) without crashing, as long as you had good drivers and didn't run software that was poorly written. Many ATMs of the day were running Windows 95 or Windows CE, and many today are still running Windows Embedded, as a perfect example of the potential for stability. As Windows has progressed, things have gotten better despite the complexity of it all increasing. When they introduced mandatory driver signing with XP-64, things got infinitely better... assuming you could *find* signed drivers for XP-64, your system *never* crashed. And as much as I loathe Vista for its sluggishness, it did introduce another major improvement to things: running drivers in user space, which allowed the OS to restart a stalled driver without having to restart the computer itself. And Windows 7 has improved things even more, especially from a user experience standpoint. For the first time, ever, since using Windows (begrudgingly) on my gaming systems, I don't feel like I'm fighting with my computer to try to coax and cajole it into doing what I want it to do.

      I'm by no means a Microsoft fangirl, nor am I wanting to get into a debate about Mac vs. Linux vs. Windows vs. Amiga vs. OS/2 etc. But I am pointing out that for all the bitching that goes on about the lack of stability in Windows, that lack of stability is basically gone these days, as long as you install signed drivers and use software that plays nice. I cannot remember the last time I had a GPF or crash on my gaming laptop, and that system doesn't get rebooted except for windows updates. (Running 7 x64 Ultimate on a Core i7 QM920 w/ 4GB of RAM and a 500GB 7200RPM SATAII drive, Radeon HD 4870 1GB graphics @ 1920x1080 15.4" LCD). And it's not just a gaming system - it also gets used to encode video and author DVDs.

      There are plenty of reasons to hate the way Microsoft is running things... DRM lock-in, the clusterfuck that is DirectX, anti-competitive business practices, hostility towards open source, etc.. But lack of stability/quality in their software isn't one of them any more.

    62. Re:Really? by realityimpaired · · Score: 1

      NASA has always used hardened electronics, which are usually a generation or two behind the bleeding edge. The space shuttle still uses '486 processors, as an example.

      Age is, however, a perfectly valid suggestion in the case of Voyager... Voyager completed its primary design mission in 1989, and its mission has been extended beyond the originally intended purpose into exploring interstellar space. Here we are, 21 years later, and the thing's still operational... that says a lot about how well built the thing is, but it also says a lot about how old the thing is. It's quite possible that age deterioration is the cause of this flipped bit.

    63. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously someone has been playing with the DIP Switches !

    64. Re:Really? by rew · · Score: 1

      This effect goes faster the hotter things are. For a normal lifetime of components, manufacturers recommend keeping the junction temperatures below 125C.

      Now, that thermo-electric-nuclear powerplant will generate some heat, and some of it will end up on the electronics... But if the specs say -40C .... 85C, don't you thing they would run the electronics around -40C? No nead to heat everything beyond the minimum I'd say...

      Now with over 100 degrees between "manufacturer recommended max" and acutal temperature, I'd estimate a lifetime of the chips of around 20000 years. (20 years normal life expectency times 1000 for the 100 degrees lower temp.... )

      Anyway, the way the memory cells are organized, with electronics degrading, a whole LINE of memory locations would start acting funny.....

    65. Re:Really? by solarlux · · Score: 1

      This bit flip may also be linked to an increase in galactic cosmic ray flux due to Voyager passing through the protective heliosheath.

    66. Re:Really? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Minesweeper comes with Windows. You don't need anything else.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    67. Re:Really? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Finally, joke about Windows all you want ... if you do a default installation of Windows and you don't install any additional drivers or software, it is extremely stable and will just sit there for ages happy to do nothing but tick away.

      Hell, my (from the OEM) installation of Windows XP has had additional drivers and software installed and it ticks away just fine. It locks up/crashes/blue screen roughly once annually, more than stable enough for most ordinary purposes. (Hell, the computer I used in the Navy to control the launch of nuclear tipped missiles crashed every month or so and was considered more than reliable enough for the job.)
       
      My installation of Windows 95/98 was a trifle less stable, but still more than stable enough for ordinary purposes.
       
      Of Window 3.1, we shall not speak - except to note that machine was unstable under DOS too.
       
      But the difference is, I know how to install and uninstall things and how to run registry cleaners, etc... etc...

    68. Re:Really? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      I have a single D type flip flop somewhere in my collection built to Voyager type specs.
      It uses a whole 4x4" PCB and has magnetic core memories, transistors, and Ge diodes...
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    69. Re:Really? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      Last windows system I installed nekkid was unconnected to the net until I had the latest rollups installed. Ironically I DL'd these with a Linux machine...

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    70. Re:Really? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Well actually that's not how they did it. At least, that's not the only means they used for analyzing the problem. According to this article Voyager 2 has the ability to do a bit by bit transmission (see 3rd or 4th paragraph down) which is exactly what NASA commanded it do do. Once they had a bit by bit stream, they were simply looking to see which bit was flipped...or multiple bits maybe, I don't know.

      However, they may also have done some bit-by-bit modeling in the manner you just described as well. If they did, however, I have never seen any information regarding it other than your post.

    71. Re:Really? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      Oh wait, never mind, I see where they talk about the process in the article you describe. Sorry, Noscript screwed the formatting on the original article and I completely missed a section of it.

    72. Re:Really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It also helps that there is no dynamic memory management. You know exactly where all variables are in RAM, what ever bit is used to store. On a modern OS data can end up anywhere.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    73. Re:Really? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Hmm, couldn't find this emulator for download, no ROMs on Pirate Bay...

      Seriously though, I'd love to see the source code and hardware specs for something like that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    74. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could mark bi-endian curious on your Facebook profile.

    75. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, now do it over a wireless network with no hope whatsoever of touching the hardware.

    76. Re:Really? by Binestar · · Score: 1

      And do you really think it is good practice to plug directly into the internet like you did or should you be behind a soho router like a cheapo $40 linksys? Something as simple as being behind a NAT router prevents what you are describing.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    77. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read in a different story that they planned to stream the running data from voyager to earth and compare it with a copy of the original code. Sounds pretty simple and certain :) (Except for the fact that voyager is able to stream it's running firmware like that at all of course. Good thinking by someone in the 70s...)

    78. Re:Really? by rocketman768 · · Score: 1

      Voyager had just taken its first step to becoming V'Ger by that 1-bit point mutation.

    79. Re:Really? by dfsmith · · Score: 1

      Voyager uses 4K of 18-bit words which is 4096*18/8=9216 "bytes". Hence it would be ~466033.8 times easier that 4GiB.

    80. Re:Really? by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Or connect it to the internet, in which case, the computer will start crashing on its own without you having ever touched it.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    81. Re:Really? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      Let me guess: cosmic ray. Is it really that hard? What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

      When you have a probe billions of miles from Earth, with no hope of ever physically retrieving it, and something weird happens, I don't think the first thing you do is start making assumptions.

      Conversely, when you have a probe billions of miles from Earth, with no hope of ever physically retrieving it, and something weird happens at a low level in an onboard system once in forty-three years, the only thing you can do is make assumptions. If it happens again, you can talk about it being symptomatic, but there is still probably nothing to do.

    82. Re:Really? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Complexity has a lot to do with it. The last time I was able to do any hacking remotely approaching that level was to use the ml monitor on an Apple ][ to boot DOS without erasing the program a friend had typed in. But that was a single process system with no memory protection and not even enough total memory to load a modern libc.

    83. Re:Really? by rew · · Score: 1

      My colleague found lots of specs and info on the nasa site.

      In short: Three different computers, with 4, 8 and 4 kwords of memory each. words are 16 or 18 bits (depending on which computer you're looking at).

      Memory is plated-wire memory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plated_wire_memory

      Each computer has an identical sister, for redundancy.

    84. Re:Really? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I really hope we would have spacecraft available with such time dillation...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    85. Re:Really? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I guess it would be very hard to run the electronics of probes at such low temperature; space isn't "cold" the way people imagine it, and overheating of working components becomes a major issue...because there's practically no convection. The only way to get rid of waste heat is to use radiative transfer.

      I somehow doubt the one on Voyager is very efficient; those (on the Shuttle, Soyuz or ISS) depend on working liquid.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    86. Re:Really? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Too many people have only USB ADSL "modems" at hand.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  3. Cosmci Ra by the+roAm · · Score: 0

    What else would it be?

    --
    ~The roAm
    1. Re:Cosmci Ra by the+roAm · · Score: 1

      Should read cosmic radiation. Obviously I have also been affected.

      --
      ~The roAm
    2. Re:Cosmci Ra by VValdo · · Score: 4, Funny

      What else would it be?

      According to some German, aliens.

      W

      PS is "Cosmci Ra" related to Mumm-Ra? Or She-Ra for that matter?

      --
      -------------------
      This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    3. Re:Cosmci Ra by data2 · · Score: 1

      The sad part is not that some people get that idea at all, but that that was the largest newspaper in Europe, with the sixth-largest circulation world-wide. And they have a reputation to pull stunts like that.
      I remember an "giant aliens playing football" article about some rounded rocks found in Antarctica.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild

  4. Have you tried..... by qwerty8ytrewq · · Score: 0

    Nice to know even the Rocket Scientists just turn it off and on again. At least they were clever enough to allow themselves access to the system, rather than having to come up with some workaround, like waiting for it to go into a planet's shadow to power down.

    --
    Waiting for the other shoe to...
    1. Re:Have you tried..... by atomicthumbs · · Score: 2, Informative

      the voyager probes use a radioisotope thermoelectric generator so that wouldn't work anyway

      --
      http://pinopsida.com
    2. Re:Have you tried..... by EdZ · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Blow in the DTR!" "No, no! Jiggle the CCS!" "Did you try uninstalling the MGA?"

    3. Re:Have you tried..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the voyager probes use a radioisotope thermoelectric generator so that wouldn't work anyway

      Wow, this is why science really makes me stop and think every once in a while.

      More of an interested hobbyist, rather than amateur or pro, but that sounds very futuristic to me, and it's over 30 years old!

    4. Re:Have you tried..... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      the voyager probes use a radioisotope thermoelectric generator so that wouldn't work anyway

      Plus you wouldn't want it to work that way - planetary encounters are mighty interesting. They were the main reason for existence of Voyagers in the first place...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    5. Re:Have you tried..... by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Funny

      All that and no "Try SCE to aux"?

    6. Re:Have you tried..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fancy words simply mean "it generates electricity from heat from radioactive decay". Wikipedia, as usual, has an informative article on it.

    7. Re:Have you tried..... by ajclements · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but Pete Conrad isn't on the craft to respond with a "What the hell is that?"

    8. Re:Have you tried..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it basically consist of only four different part.
      lead shielding
      radioactive hot stuff
      peltierelement
      heatsink

      The heatsink can also work as shielding.

    9. Re:Have you tried..... by lxs · · Score: 1

      That and the Sun being fainter than a full moon on Earth when seen from that distance make solar panels rather impractical.

    10. Re:Have you tried..... by sznupi · · Score: 1

      In Voyager-like mission, sure. But in some cases which were until recently a no-go, it's "...made solar panels rather impractical", not strictly "make". At least for missions to Jupiter; they will use solar panels soon (and I wouldn't be too surprised if the progress in solar panels gave us that at Saturn at least, at some point)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
  5. So.... reboot? by superdave80 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why don't they just always try that first?

    1. Re:So.... reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It doesn't work unless you hit f8 and go into safe mode.

    2. Re:So.... reboot? by the+roAm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because if it had been something else, rebooting could have done more harm than good.

      --
      ~The roAm
    3. Re:So.... reboot? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why don't they just always try that first?

              Because sometimes it doesn't come back on again.

            Brett

    4. Re:So.... reboot? by llvllatrix · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, uptime blog cred!

    5. Re:So.... reboot? by PePe242 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hello IT, ... have you tried turning it off and on again?

    6. Re:So.... reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      33 year uptime. Do. not. want. to. restart!

    7. Re:So.... reboot? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Pfff, typical engineers. Having Shutdown next to Reboot is very efficient, but not very fault tolerant.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    8. Re:So.... reboot? by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

      If the support team was based at one of our bespoke app companies they probably would go straight for a reboot; I called them a couple of weeks ago about a site where their app was crashing. They had a look and reported back...Probable cause: "Windows Server had not been rebooted for a couple of weeks"

      I despair!

      --
      AT&ROFLMAO
    9. Re:So.... reboot? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      Just in case someone left a floppy in the A: drive.

    10. Re:So.... reboot? by jtorkbob · · Score: 1

      Because if it doesn't come back up, and they send a tech from the hosting provider to put hands on it, the bill will be a bitch.

      --
      AC: Only on slashdot... could the sentence "My hovercraft is full of eels." be moderated "+4, Insightful
    11. Re:So.... reboot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't they just always try that first?

      Because this isn't windows XP.

    12. Re:So.... reboot? by cycleflight · · Score: 1

      Check if it's plugged in first.

      --
      "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
    13. Re:So.... reboot? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Just do what American private industry does...outsource it to aliens.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:So.... reboot? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I wonder how sure they are that it will...

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    15. Re:So.... reboot? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Just in case someone left a floppy in the A: drive.

      "A:" drives hadn't been invented the last time this hardware was on Earth.
      (Well, acktewerley ... 5 1/4" floppy discs were certainly around, and there were machines that could boot from a 5 1/4$ floppy in one of the disc drives, but not normally by default. And they didn't call those disc drives "A:" ; I don't recall what CP/M or my old PDP-11 called the floppy drives now, but it wasn't "A:".)

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    16. Re:So.... reboot? by BraksDad · · Score: 1

      Is it plugged in?

      Now, theres your problem!" - Adam Savage

      Where did I put that extension cord?

      --
      Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  6. What!? No parity checking?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Finally, we found a use for ECC RAM!

    Must suck waiting 26 hours to find out if the reboot worked...

    1. Re:What!? No parity checking?! by mjwx · · Score: 3, Funny

      Must suck waiting 26 hours to find out if the reboot worked...

      Nah, thats just like rebooting a Windows 2003 server. 14 days and it's still "Applying Computer Settings"

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    2. Re:What!? No parity checking?! by rwv · · Score: 1

      I think I've seen the bug your talking about with a system on a small local network with a misconfigured Domain Manager and/or router. At one point there was an infinite loop (or at least a really long timeout period) for systems to establish their network connection to the domain, so as long as an Ethernet cable was detected it would keep on trying to establish its connection. Bloody difficult to figure out exactly what was wrong, and yet so simple to fix (apply a specific patch and configure the network correctly) once things were correctly diagnosed.

    3. Re:What!? No parity checking?! by mjwx · · Score: 1

      I think I've seen the bug your talking about with a system on a small local network with a misconfigured Domain Manager and/or router. At one point there was an infinite loop (or at least a really long timeout period) for systems to establish their network connection to the domain, so as long as an Ethernet cable was detected it would keep on trying to establish its connection. Bloody difficult to figure out exactly what was wrong, and yet so simple to fix (apply a specific patch and configure the network correctly) once things were correctly diagnosed.

      It was a joke, but thanks anyway.

      I inherited my current network from two completely incompetent idiots, so if the DC is misconfigured it wouldn't surprise me, most machines boot fine, only the DC has this issue and eventually boots after 15 mins.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  7. good job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Futurama reference

  8. 0 Post!!!!! by Overkill+Nbuta · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    0 Post!!!!!!

  9. 33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by blind+biker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why you DO WANT nuclear energy in space! OK, Voyager 1 and 2 have RTGs, but even those are considered politically incorrect these days, especially such massive ones as in the Voyagers.

    More nuclear power in spacecraft, I say. To provide propulsion (ion drive, or even better, explosive drive) and energy when far from the Sun. Fuck PC.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a sign of a much bigger problem: democracy in science and engineering. Be it climate research, paleobiology or space research - the decisions should be made using sound scientific / engineering reasoning, not on the basis of whoever shouts the loudest / has more clout wins. Science is awesome because even if everyone believes in hypothesis, it does not make it automatically to be true.
      Unfortunately, we all see how it is working out: PETA wants to ban bio-research on animals, RTGs in space being a huge no-no. Don't even get me started on the regulations involved in doing the really cool next-gen stuff: non-clinical human research (like implants), panicky fear of any genetic modifications, etc. etc.

    2. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by eclectro · · Score: 2, Informative

      Politically incorrectness is not what is stopping RTGs from being launched, but lack of supply of plutonium 238. It's difficult to protest launches with radioactive elements because they all have been successful. And if one were to crash, the RTGs are sealed so there would not be any leakage. Unfortunately environmentalists want to protest anything radioactive, even though such criticisms may no longer be valid.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    3. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by mjwx · · Score: 0

      This is why you DO WANT nuclear energy in space!

      Things go wrong and you say that this is a reason why people DO WANT nuclear power in space?

      Something is so very, very wrong with your reasoning. If NASA couldn't fix the problem we wouldn't just have a bit of space junk spewing out garbage transmissions, we'd have a bit NUCLEAR space junk spewing out garbage transmissions.

      explosive drive

      That is a very bad idea for two reasons (assuming you're referring to project Orion and not completely off your tree). 1. Nuclear bombs are very heavy and very destructive, not only do you have the cost of getting them up there but you also have the very real possibility of them being detonated at slightly the wrong angle or slightly the wrong distance vaporising the craft (we are talking about NUCLEAR fucking bombs people) or any of the myriad of other unpredicted problems you will encounter in deep space. 2. Once out in space, you do not need continual propulsion, deploying an explosive drive means sending up two propulsion systems rather then just putting more fuel into the first.

      Two massive hurdles prevent the use of nuclear reactors in space, weight and the ability to operate them safely from remote. First, nuclear reactors are very very heavy with all that radiation shielding. Secondly we can not guarantee that remote systems will operate, it's hard enough to keep a well maintained reactor on the ground operating without constant human intervention (which is why they have constant human intervention) let alone one that will be completely unmaintained and far far from any human help. Solve these hurdles and the political one is trivial.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    4. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by richard.cs · · Score: 1

      Nuclear reactors have been used in space before, the soviets used them in some radar satellites. The shielding isn't really a problem once it's in space so a reactor could be designed with just enough shielding to contain the initial radioactivity of the fuel without worrying about shielding the much higher radiation levels once the reactor is operating. The shielding that it does have could also be jettisoned fairly early on in the mission.

      I will agree however that RTGs are much more reliable and as such are desirable for deep space missions where the power requirements are not too high.

    5. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by PeterBrett · · Score: 4, Informative

      Something is so very, very wrong with your reasoning. If NASA couldn't fix the problem we wouldn't just have a bit of space junk spewing out garbage transmissions, we'd have a bit NUCLEAR space junk spewing out garbage transmissions.

      Oh no! What a terrible thing! There's nothing like that in space at the moment, how could we possibly manage?

      The Van Allen belts contain high enough concentrations of radiation that they make Chernobyl's fallout look like spilt milk. The sun regularly pumps out solar flares that would kill unshielded humans in seconds. Compared to that, I find it very very difficult to be at all concerned by a tiny spacecraft literally billions of kilometres away.

      That is a very bad idea for two reasons (assuming you're referring to project Orion and not completely off your tree). 1. Nuclear bombs are very heavy and very destructive, not only do you have the cost of getting them up there but you also have the very real possibility of them being detonated at slightly the wrong angle or slightly the wrong distance vaporising the craft (we are talking about NUCLEAR fucking bombs people) or any of the myriad of other unpredicted problems you will encounter in deep space. 2. Once out in space, you do not need continual propulsion, deploying an explosive drive means sending up two propulsion systems rather then just putting more fuel into the first.

      Oh dear, where do I start? Firstly, no, nuclear explosives (they're only bombs if you're dropping them on someone) are not necessarily "very heavy". They can be easily built small and light enough to fit into an artillery shell; if a serious Orion development programme was resumed, you'd be looking at 5-10 kg per charge, possibly less. In the Orion model, the pusher plate and damping structure are by far the most massive components. Secondly, nuclear explosions behave very differently in a vacuum than in air; most of the destructive power of a nuclear detonation on Earth is due to the way that the massive energy release affects the atmosphere. Thirdly, it's bloody hard to get a nuclear explosive to detonate. They can only detonate successfully if a very long and complex chain of events occur in precisely the right way. I think you overestimate the risk massively. Honestly, mining with conventional explosives is far more risky than propulsion using nuclear explosives will ever be. Finally, one of the biggest advantages of the proposed Orion propulsion system is that the mass efficiency is very high, meaning that it's possible to continue thrusting for a long period of time, so the whole point is that you want to use it "out in space."

      I recommend reading 'Project Orion' by George Dyson if you want to know more about the practicalities of the Orion propulsion system.

      Two massive hurdles prevent the use of nuclear reactors in space, weight and the ability to operate them safely from remote. First, nuclear reactors are very very heavy with all that radiation shielding.

      Which you don't need in space; you design the reactor so the majority of the radiation produced is directed away from the spacecraft. Look up NASA's SP-100 design.

      Secondly we can not guarantee that remote systems will operate, it's hard enough to keep a well maintained reactor on the ground operating without constant human intervention (which is why they have constant human intervention) let alone one that will be completely unmaintained and far far from any human help.

      No, modern reactors run on almost completely automated systems, even down to choosing which rods should optimally be replaced next. Human intervention is only required when modifying output to match grid loads (and even then, that's largely automated too). Even if something goes wrong, modern reactor safety systems have so much redundancy and fail-safe assumptions

    6. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by ikkonoishi · · Score: 1

      Yeah Chernobyl went critical because its Party appointed operators specifically disabled its safety systems and drove the reactor past its red line.

      http://mikevanpelt.com/chernobyl.html

      The test that lead to the disaster at Chernobyl was meant to see if the plant could be safely shutdown if the plant were to lose all electrical power. Basically, they were going to see if the turbine generators would produce enough electricity to power the circulating pumps (which remove the core's heat) while the turbine was coasting down to a halt after the reactor was tripped (all control rods fully inserted). This test had been completed successfully on other reactors with a few key differences. On the other plants, the reactors were shutdown first and in a stable condition. The other difference is that the lose of power was only supposed, actual power was still available to the emergency equipment and as a backup to the circulating pumps. At Chernobyl, the engineer proposed starting the test with the reactor critical and actually removing power from the circulating pumps. The emergency diesel generators were disabled and the reserve power supplies disconnected. The idea was to actually deprive the plant of all electrical power.

      Additionally, the reactor operators were afraid that if the emergency equipment automatically started as it was designed to do, the cold water that it would inject into the core would cause a thermal shock. Anyone who has had a hot glass shatter under cold water knows what thermal shock can do. To avoid this, the pushbutton which started the safety equipment was disconnected. The control rods would insert but the safety equipment would not start. Automatic starting was also disabled. The test, including set up time, would take about 4 hours. For those 4 hours the core would be without safety equipment.

      Many other plants were approached by the engineer but because of the risk involved, no others would do it. When Chernobyl's chief engineer, Fomin (who, as you will recall, had no nuclear training or experience), was asked, he jumped at the chance to have his name associated with such an important test.

    7. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This is why you DO WANT nuclear energy in space! OK, Voyager 1 and 2 have RTGs, but even those are considered politically incorrect these days

      [[Citation needed]]
       
      Seriously, not many nuclear powered probes have been launched because there aren't that many missions requiring them. Despite that, we've been launching them at a fairly steady rate.
       
      The real problem with them over the last twenty years has been that their fuel is actually a byproduct of nuclear weapons production and processing - an activity that has greatly declined since the end of the cold war. The number of protesters/lawsuits has been dropping steadily with each launch - and there hasn't been a peep to date over the upcoming launch of the nuclear powered MSL rover.

    8. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      As much as we all like to make fun of the Soviets, why do I get a feeling that something just like this could easily happen at work! Good thing that we don't have huge masses of uranium lying around.

    9. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 1

      Sorry, pet peeve:

      Yeah Chernobyl went critical because...

      I know Hollywood has done its best to make people think "critical == exploding," but reactors producing energy at a constant rate are critical. Prompt criticality is a different story (the linked article explains the difference).

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
    10. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you are one of the few people holding all of humanity back in the dark ages.

      If you do not wish to understand things, that's OK. Just stop destroying the future of our species while doing it :P

    11. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by sjames · · Score: 1

      The tolerances for Orion are not likely that tight. It's just not that hard to make sure an atomic explosive doesn't prematurely detonate, we've never had an accidental nuclear weapon explosion. A big advantage of such a system is that each bomb is it's own mechanism. If one fails, it has no bearing on the next one exploding.

      The radiation from nuclear devices in space would tend to get lost in the background. There's a lot of radiation in space.

      As for safe remote operation, what makes you think we can't? All nuclear reactors are for all practical purposes remotely controlled. Nobody ever runs up to the reactor to manually turn a valve or pull a lever. Meanwhile, the consequences for a failure in space are much smaller than for a terrestrial reactor.

      And, of course, there's RTGs which have been successfully used for decades now but for some reason have become politically incorrect. You don't really operate an RTG, it just keeps producing power which you can then use or not. There isn't even an off switch.

    12. Re:33 years and still going strong - nuclear FTW by trout007 · · Score: 1

      In Obama's 2011 budget for NASA there is funding for the DOE to restart P-238 production for RTG's.
      http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1372

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  10. Hero by LoudMusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    NASA is my hero. They do cool shit all the time. Even when their stuff breaks, it's cool. Then they fix it and it's even more cool.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Hero by chichilalescu · · Score: 1

      Well, you have to realize that there are only two classes of scientists that work on the edge: emergency room doctors and the people at NASA. Any other scientist can get back to the drawing board, and it's no big deal, but NASA people have only one chance at getting it right.
      Offtopic: that's probably why real scientists are surprised that is such a thing as a "software bug" --- they don't really expect you to say a program works unless it actually works.

      --
      new sig
    2. Re:Hero by Thanshin · · Score: 1

      that's probably why real scientists are surprised that is such a thing as a "software bug" --- they don't really expect you to say a program works unless it actually works.

      Well, we could say the program works in theory, and then, when it doesn't, say it's all right, the theory was just disproven.

      Or, we could say we don't know if works, but it's a good enough aproximation for what you need. And then we can put someone to investigate whether it really was.

    3. Re:Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Emergency room doctors are mechanics, not scientists.

      They're paid to fix people, not find truth.

    4. Re:Hero by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      They do cool shit all the time.

      No kidding

    5. Re:Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      NASA is my hero. They do cool shit all the time. Even when their stuff breaks, it's cool.

      While the fireworks involved were indeed spectacular, I hear the crews of Challenger and Columbia would like to have a word with you for that bold statement...

    6. Re:Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hypocrites. Microsoft never gets this kind of credits for their bugs!

    7. Re:Hero by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      in that case its a few k but most todays programs are several thousands or more. i'd like to see a "real" scientist verify every possible thing going on and declare it works in all cases. i mean, in 50 years, when he's actually done. or more, maybe.

    8. Re:Hero by roman_mir · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wall street firms are my hero. The shit they do is so cool, it the pristine ice of Titan is like hot lava in comparison. They hack the entire political system, turn it completely against itself, use the fact that the banks are Federally insured to their advantage so that bank customers never bother to check, who the hell are they giving their money to. They hack the Government, install the Fed, get Free Money, hack some more, get the country off the gold standard, become huge beyond anyone's imagination, hack some more, create a bunch of moral hazards by making sure government also insures mortgages, at this point the last hack is the most beautiful though: have the right people slipped into the government positions to pay the banks for failing in the hugest ways and make hundreds of billions of dollars getting bailed out AFTER they lose everyone's money. They are FORCED by the hacked government to take the cash and everyone is asking them to 'please take the money'. They have hacked the society completely to make it believe that this is how things should be done: fiat money, fed, printing, borrowing, insuring by government, regulations to kill off competition, globalization, high frequency trading, more insurance by government, moral hazard, bail out cash, too big to fail, and the next hack will be the most amazing yet, when the t-bills and bonds are being sold off and the dollars printed to buy back all of them while these guys will make so much money, something into quadrillions, when they get back the bets against all of those bonds and t-bills and government securities and the entire world begs them at their knees to PLEASE, PLEASE take it ALL just so that tomorrow the day will be approximately the same as yesterday. And they will graciously take it all.

      Now that is a hack worthy of admiring.

    9. Re:Hero by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think NASA is a pretty cool guy. eh makes probes and doesnt afraid of anything.

    10. Re:Hero by Kenneth+Stephen · · Score: 1

      Actually, they aren't even paid to do that. Their job is not to fix someone but to stabilize them enough to take them out of crisis mode. Fixing is done by regular physicians.

      --

      There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.

    11. Re:Hero by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Voyager 2 is tough because it was designed back in the 70's, when there were still a few engineers at NASA left who actually knew what they were doing.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  11. Cosmic Ruse by XiaoMing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First I was going to suggest that this satellite would careen forward out of control like a Toyota, but then realized that wouldn't be quite accurate.

    The cosmic rays we get one Earth are actually short-lived particles such as muons (a fat electron, probably most well known aside from the standard protons-neutrons-electrons) that result from cosmic naked hydrogens hitting our atmosphere. Out in space though, it'd be interesting to see if those protons would have the same effect as a terrestrial "cosmic ray".

  12. Just incredible! by mcrbids · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Voyager is anything but brand new. Voyager is probably older than most Slashdotters, having been launched in 1977. Think about it: 1977 - when advanced microchips were not as powerful as the chip driving the shatty calculator you buy today at the dollar store. 1977 was a different time, when information technology usually didn't even involve transistors, yet, and vacuum tube testers (for your TV) were still found at the local drug store.

    And yet, some 33 years later, Voyager 2 is still chugging on, after visiting ALL of the outer planets, still going waaayayyyyyyy past its original design limits, still providing meaningful information on its way out roughly towards the star Sirius. It's now twice as far away from the Sun as Pluto is.

    Like the Mars rovers, this is truly good engineering at work.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 1977 was a different time, when information technology usually didn't even involve transistors, yet

      Uh...the last vacuum-tube computer was sold in the 1950s.

    2. Re:Just incredible! by fdrebin · · Score: 5, Informative

      1977 was a different time, when information technology usually didn't even involve transistors, yet, and vacuum tube testers (for your TV) were still found at the local drug store.

      Tube testers were pretty darned hard to find almost anywhere in 1977 (you could find them in old-used-electronics stores). I do recall testing tubes in drugstores in the early 70's.

      Solid state, and even (*gasp*) integrated circuits were in widespread use. Why, by gosh by golly, we even had *8080*'s then.

      I was a senior in college in physics+EE; I and a handful of my fellow students managed to coerce one of the EE profs to take a few hours and teach us about tubes (they had been removed from the curriculum). For the most part the interest was for us audio-nerds... tubes had that nice desirable sweet sound... (but I digress)

      /F

      --
      Stupidity... has a habit of getting its way.
    3. Re:Just incredible! by lul_wat · · Score: 1

      Radioactives, baby.

      --
      Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
    4. Re:Just incredible! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      tubes had that nice desirable sweet distortion...

      There, fixed that for ya...

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    5. Re:Just incredible! by dugeen · · Score: 1

      The thought of Voyager still on its way is an inspiring one. I can't visualise it without hearing the opening notes of the original Star Trek theme.

    6. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hmmm I live in Canada and even my local corner store (typical place to find them) had a tester in the late 70's and even into the 80's... I'm guessing by the mid 80's they finally realized nobody was buying anything from the rack of tubes that were gathering dust underneath.... but I do recall somewhere in that era... near the end... taking a tube from an old radio in to see if it worked.

    7. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tubes are also why the internet has such a nice desirable sweet sound.

    8. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I am way old now...Born 1977.

    9. Re:Just incredible! by mirix · · Score: 1

      Writing was well past on the wall for tubes by 1977. TV's were almost all solid state by the mid 70's, with the exception of the GE "portacolor" sets, which somehow managed to be made into the 80's. (No idea how / why they kept them that way. I suppose GE had a massive glut of associated parts).
      Radios and stereos would have been SS for a decade already, for the most part (couple stragglers here too).

      The latest production, normal, sort of consumer type tubes, (ie. not 100kW radio station tubes) made here that I've come across were all army/navy labeled stuff, dating to the mid 1980s. I figure the tube manufacturers made one last order for the feds (for servicing existing army equipment) before they sold off or scrapped the tooling entirely.

      The soviets were making all sorts of standard receiving tubes right until the dissolution of the USSR. Now the Russians and Chinese only make stuff that goes in guitar & hi-fi amps, and a select few amateur radio types. Probably a hundred variations on twenty or so models, these days.

      Unrelated to tubes, but related to voyager...
      To think that the bizarre RCA "COSMAC" 1802 was just hot off the presses, and too new to get on this boat. (think Galileo had 'em though).

      Although you'd think 1802s would have been horribly outdated by then (late 80s), but they *still* make the bloody things, 34 years later. I wonder what a brand new ancient rad-hard cpu costs.

      --
      Sent from my PDP-11
    10. Re:Just incredible! by Another,+completely · · Score: 1

      In the 1970s, computers were used for two things: to go to the moon, and to play pong. Nothing in between. That was back before every OS sucked.

      Just thought you would appreciate the song. Getting offa your lawn now.

    11. Re:Just incredible! by vlm · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder what a brand new ancient rad-hard cpu costs.

      They're all kind of "ancient", by some definition. The BAE RAD6000 is at least 14 years old and they go for about 1/4 mil. Most recent launch was this February.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RAD6000

      Some might consider the RAD750 to be "ancient" being about 9 years old. They retail about $200K. The TSSM is going to launch in a decade with one, at which point that CPU will be 19 years old.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD750

      The cost and licensing of the fault tolerant GPL LEON series is very confusing, so the cost is somewhere between GPL/free and "if you have to ask, you can't afford it".

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEON

      To some extent you can just go to the wikipedia rad hardened CPU page and pick and choose.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Radiation-hardened_microprocessors

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    12. Re:Just incredible! by vlm · · Score: 5, Informative

      1977 - when advanced microchips were not as powerful as the chip driving the shatty calculator you buy today at the dollar store.

      Classic, ever repeated confusion of what "power" is. Unless you mean volts times amps, power is what you can do with it. An old mainframe can run a department of a small multinational corporation, maybe a large university, or perhaps a division of state government. We know this, because they did in fact do so, very profitably. You claim a dollar store calculator is more powerful. That means a dollar store calculator should be able to run, say, an entire multinational corporation, maybe multiple universities, or an entire state government. Oh wait, a dollar store calculator can, at best, slowly calculate someone's income tax, possibly correctly. I guess the old mainframe is more powerful after all.

      When I worked at a mainframe shop in the late 90s I heard alot of similar tiresome comments... "Ha ha, mainframes, bet you didn't know my laptop can run NOPs faster than your mainframe can run floating point FFTs ha ha ha mainframes". At which point you simply tell them to put up or shut up, hand them a bus and tag cable, and have their infinitely "more powerful" laptop process 5% of the NYSE volume like our mainframes did, while supporting about 100K trader desks, a couple TB of tape robot storage, etc.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    13. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually no, it wasn't distortion. Tubes had a faster slew rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slew_rate. Audiophiles claimed (I can't verify their claims as I don't hear the difference) that the faster slew rate lead to a better sound.

    14. Re:Just incredible! by jamesh · · Score: 1

      I live in Canada and

      Well obviously Canada was still using an outdated technology years after everyone else had stopped using it ;)

    15. Re:Just incredible! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>1977 was a different time, when information technology usually didn't even involve transistors

      It's difficult to find technical data about Voyager, but I did dig up this information:
      - Voyager was one of the earliest spacecraft to use Volatile memory (CMOS) rather than hardwired ROM. The management was not thrilled with the idea, because they feared volatile memory could be damaged by the space environment.

      - The processor operated at 20 ms cycles. If I did my math correctly that's only 0.1 megahertz..... 1/10th as fast as most 8 bit computers or consoles (C64, AppleII, NES, Atari, etc).

      - The software was written by just two guys, and is stored in only 4K of memory (like a VIC20 or Atari VCS/2600 cartridge). I don't know how much RAM is available.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Just incredible! by commodore64_love · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      >>>for us audio-nerds... tubes had that nice desirable sweet sound...

      "Sizzle"..... like a modern day iPod/MP3 player. NOT a desirable trait in my humble opinion. I prefer the cleanness of CDs or other non-compressed media.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Just incredible! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      When I think of Voyager I think of the SMELL of magazines like Astronomy, National Geographic, and Analog Science Fiction. That was where I first read about Voyager (late 70s) and followed their path all through my childhood. I didn't see the Voyager-themed Trek movie until the SciFi Channel ran it in the mid-90s.

      Even now the magazine scent still takes me back to my parents old dark basement, flipping through the articles, and "traveling" to far-off destinations.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    18. Re:Just incredible! by jmichaelg · · Score: 1

      In 1977, a small disk controller company in the San Fernando Valley that I went to work for a few years later had an assembly line populated by women who were wire wrapping backplanes for a disk controller the size of a refrigerator. I can assure you, there wasn't a single vacuum tube to be found in that 1977 box - it was all discrete transistors, capacitors and resistors connected by a rat's maze of wiring.

        Had the company survived, the next model was going to include a new chip from another relatively young company called Intel that would eliminate some of the wire wrapping job. We were, however, going to keep the company's proprietary CPU because it could execute one of its seven instructions on a 36 bit-wide bus within half a microsecond whereas the 'advanced' Intel chip required something on the order of 10 microseconds to shuffle 8 bits. It was the first RISC CPU I ever saw way before the term RISC became popular. Had the company switched to building the CPU as a chip and sold it instead of disk controllers, it might have beat Intel.

    19. Re:Just incredible! by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>have their infinitely "more powerful" laptop process 5% of the NYSE volume like our mainframes did, while supporting about 100K trader desks, a couple TB of tape robot storage, etc.

      A laptop could do that if it had an efficient assembly-written OS (like Kolibri), rather than the bloated general purpose OSes like Windows NT or OS X. At my former company we used the equivalent of laptops (Pentium 2s) to manage, load mission data, and launch a ship full of Tomahawk missiles.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    20. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Classic, ever repeated confusion of what "power" is. Unless you mean volts times amps, power is what you can do with it.

      Have you ever kissed a girl?

    21. Re:Just incredible! by khallow · · Score: 4, Funny

      Have you ever kissed a girl?

      This is the wrong place to ask for dating advice.

    22. Re:Just incredible! by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 1

      You did your math wrong it is 500 hertz

    23. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure mainframes are what he meant by "advanced microchips." Makes sense, seeing as voyager 2 had a mainframe on it. Jackass.

    24. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Exactly. The IBM 360 had a truly incredible I/O capacity, powered by multiple parallel processing elements called "channels." You programmed them with "channel command words" or CCWs. They were independent of the main CPU. When a channel needed memory, it got locked down (pfixed) and allocated to the channel, so the channel could piss into memory at high speed. Really large, thick cables connected the CPU with peripheral devices. These cables had lots of wires in them. Because lots of bits were flowing IN PARALLEL. Look up the transfer rate of a 2701 drum drive, still maintained and used for paging devices as late as the 1980's by companies who could not find anything faster.

      When DEC tried to claim that they could replace 360's with VAX's, guess what happened? They didn't have massively parallel I/O processors. They didn't have a massive transfer capability. They generated an interrupt on every character typed by every user, for God's sake. They were not I/O engines. They failed, utterly. Not that VAX wasn't a good machine, but no way could it replace a 360.

      How did a small 360 support hundreds of users? Why, through an innovation called "CICS." What happened was, the mainframe would fill a 3270 CRT terminal screen with a "form." You would fill in the form, locally, using the "smart" 3270's field-editing and checking capability, with no interaction with the mainframe. When you were finished filling in your form, you'd hit TRANSMIT. At which point, the variable data on your form would be glued together by the 3270 in one record and sent up for processing by the mainframe (along with everyone else's form data). A few seconds later, you'd get another form in response. Lather, rinse, repeat.

      Oh wait. That's exactly how most business Web applications work. Except the screens are prettier.

    25. Re:Just incredible! by AmonRa1979 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Though in your case, I think it's more than just one bit that's flipped. I've read some of your posts Mr. AC.

    26. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      arguments made by smart people that are designed to
      prove an emotional, already decided point can be so silly.

      car analogy. you're arguing that a pickup is more powerful
      than a f1 car because you can get more done with it.

      you should be aware this isn't the definition anyone else uses.

    27. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There, fixed that for ya...

      Er, no, there's nothing to fix about that. Grandparent poster didn't say "high fidelity", he said "nice sound". A guitar played through a tube amp sounds better than when played through a solid-state amp. Yes, this is due to the distortion, but no one was suggesting otherwise.

    28. Re:Just incredible! by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I keep coming up with 0.05. How did you get 0.5 MHz?

      That's still slower than a videogame console. The slowest ever made was Intellivision at 0.9 MHz, although it had a 16 bit processor so it was effectively twice as fast at moving data.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    29. Re:Just incredible! by SeanAD · · Score: 1

      Really, all I want to say is that is one of the funniest/witty/factual replies I've ever read.

      By the time I got to the end, I was like, "No, don't let it end!"

      Anyway kudos, man.

    30. Re:Just incredible! by Stenchwarrior · · Score: 1

      Like the Mars rovers, this is truly good engineering at work.

      Not to downplay the engineering or skill involved (I couldn't even build a hammer) but when I hear "...operating past its original design limits..." I can't help but think that they purposely set the limits low so that when the machines operate better than anticipated, NASA (or anyone else for that matter) can take a higher degree of credit than if they were more realistic with the expectations. I guess this way it looks better on the budget report.

      --
      Loading...
    31. Re:Just incredible! by Ironchew · · Score: 1

      Wow, just...wow.
      You did your math wrong there. A 20-ms cycle is 50 Hz, slower than the AC we get out here in the United States.

    32. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      What's it like?

    33. Re:Just incredible! by zevans · · Score: 1

      car analogy. you're arguing that a pickup is more powerful
      than a f1 car because you can get more done with it.

      you should be aware this isn't the definition anyone else uses.

      Which itself demonstrates the problem perfectly.

      With cars, people talk about power, without talking about kerb weight, gear ratios, torque, or anything else that would dictate how fast it gets up the strip. (And then that itself doesn't tell you anything about lap times.) ...in the same way that the market is still obsessed with cores, despite the fact that business applications were I/O bound for most of the 90s.

      Now we have a new disease: the lack of awareness of these very issues means that modern business applications are mostly application bound. Or as the GP also mentions, they have a simply appalling interface that doesn't give the user ANY chance of flexing the technology.

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
    34. Re:Just incredible! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0, Troll

      Heh, yeah, I love how he tries to prove the mainframe is more powerful than laptops by first making his opinion the default, then requiring you to do something completely ridiculous to prove him wrong, like rewrite the entire software stack for the business mainframe. Oh you aren't going to recreate a hundred person-years of work just to demonstrate what common sense (and half an ounce of computer knowledge) would show plainly? That means I'm right! Put up or shut up, boyo!

      The measure of power of hardware is not "what you can do with it", where that means existent software. The function of the software can be recreated on a different machine. Turing completeness and all that. The measure of power is, and always has been, equivalent number of operations per second. And hey that means you get to count your specialized FFT hardware as if it's equal to the same number of operations required on a laptop processor. All the vectorized instructions and the specialized I/O controllers go straight to the bottom line.

      Guess what? The 1977 mainframe still gets its ass kicked by a machine running at close to 1 IPC at 500 MHz. The mainframes were very nice architectures with a lot of beefy design in them. They had it because they needed it. You needed a dozen I/O channels with dedicated controllers because the main CPUs couldn't handle that and anything else, and there was no other way to keep a sufficient data throughput from storage.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    35. Re:Just incredible! by flerchin · · Score: 1

      With a 20 ms period, the frequency (f = 1/T) is 50 Hz.

      You seem to be also confused about the units.
      1 second = 1 second. Once per second is 1 Hz.
      1 second = 1000 milliseconds (ms). Once per ms is 1000 Hz or 1 kHz.
      1 millisecond = 1000 microseconds (us). Once per us is 1000000 Hz or 1 MHz.
      1 microsecond = 1000 nanoseconds (ns). Once per ns is 1000000000 Hz or 1GHz.

      --
      --why?
    36. Re:Just incredible! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't help but think that they purposely set the limits low so that when the machines operate better than anticipated, NASA (or anyone else for that matter) can take a higher degree of credit than if they were more realistic with the expectations.

      That's one way to look at it.

      Another way to look at it is that it is impossible in most cases to precisely predict how long a specific instance of a part will last before failure, and you can at best describe it probabilistically. So first, you're going to design it to last as long as possible. Then, you're going to take your estimated Mean Time Before Failure and back off by a couple standard deviations so that there's a high probability that the part will last at least that long, rather than a 50% chance of it lasting longer than the mean (assuming normal distribution for part failure).

      To put it simply: Designing something so that you can be fairly certain it will last as long as you need it necessarily means designing it so that if things go well it can last much longer. That's not sandbagging, it's called margin and it's needed to usefully meet the requirements. The requirement is "A device that lasts for at least X years". Not "A device that on average lasts X years".

      This doesn't apply that much to the Mars rovers though. They were engineered as robustly as possible within the weight limits to be sure they could survive at all in a largely unknown environment. The 90 day mission had nothing to do with the design of any particular component except for the solar panels, and that only because they didn't know the Martian wind would blow the dust off for them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    37. Re:Just incredible! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Practically every practical audio amp distorts from time to time unless you compress the music to death. Many tube amps distort in a way that is more aesthetically pleasing than the way most transistor amps distort. For an audio application, what the human ear percieves is much more important than what the o-scope shows.

      Note that these days you can get transistor amps that are about as good as the tube amps, but not in the '70s.

    38. Re:Just incredible! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Just goes to show what you can do if you strip out the gooey interface and design a decent system around the CPU.

    39. Re:Just incredible! by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      My Suzuki V-Strom (650cc, 478 pounds wet) is obviously much more powerful than my Nissan Frontier (4L, somewhere over 5000 pounds, but I'm too lazy to look up exactly how much) since it can absolutely smoke my pickup in the quarter mile.

      Wait, no...my Nissan Frontier is obviously much more powerful than my V-Strom because I can carry so much more in it (four people, plus whatever I can fit in the bed, plus ten thousand pounds towing weight).

      Ummm...wait...what was I saying again?

      Ultimately, different tools are better suited to different tasks. Arguing that one tool is "more powerful" because it is better at some arbitrary task is just stupid.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    40. Re:Just incredible! by ooshna · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ it must take forever to send and receive transmissions for that thing if its that far out. How far do you have to go to be considered outside of the solar system?

    41. Re:Just incredible! by snowwrestler · · Score: 1

      You're talking about systems (mainframes vs. laptops) but the comment was referring to chips. Granted it was an exaggeration, but to answer your question--build a mainframe around a modern laptop chip and it could indeed do the things you're talking about.

      --
      Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
    42. Re:Just incredible! by khallow · · Score: 1

      I don't know, just repeating advice I heard.

    43. Re:Just incredible! by wringles · · Score: 1

      Voyager is probably older than most Slashdotters, having been launched in 1977.

      Hey, I'm older than Voyager, you insensitive clod! I've just flipped something at you, and it's not a single memory bit.

    44. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >At which point you simply tell them to put up or shut up, hand them a bus and tag cable, and have their infinitely "more powerful" laptop process 5% of the NYSE volume like our mainframes did, while supporting about 100K trader desks, a couple TB of tape robot storage, etc.

      At which point I would hand you a piece of paper and a pencil, and you would have your answer.

      You're expecting someone to come up with a solution to replace a system in five minutes that took 30 years and countless programmers to build using a cable that won't even connect to anything designed since 1977. I believe that you've missed the point.

    45. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it clearly now. It is an obvious datatype assignment error.

      The problem only occurred after the stewart firmware upgrade for that old shatty calculator - in the new firmware now 1 goes where no 1 has gone before instead of where no man has gone before.

    46. Re:Just incredible! by sznupi · · Score: 1

      Or you can just just add DSP to that "not quite aesthetically pleasing" transistor amp.

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    47. Re:Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1977 was a different time, when information technology usually didn't even involve transistors, yet, and vacuum tube testers (for your TV) were still found at the local drug store.

      Tube testers were pretty darned hard to find almost anywhere in 1977 (you could find them in old-used-electronics stores). I do recall testing tubes in drugstores in the early 70's.

      Solid state, and even (*gasp*) integrated circuits were in widespread use. Why, by gosh by golly, we even had *8080*'s then.

      I was a senior in college in physics+EE; I and a handful of my fellow students managed to coerce one of the EE profs to take a few hours and teach us about tubes (they had been removed from the curriculum). For the most part the interest was for us audio-nerds... tubes had that nice desirable sweet sound... (but I digress)

      /F

      Indeed, great topic!

      Regards,

      http://www.jnbwebpromotion.com/

    48. Re:Just incredible! by Rallias+Ubernerd · · Score: 1

      Only barely.

    49. Re:Just incredible! by sjames · · Score: 1

      That's what I meant by the last line, the good transistor amps do just that. But not in the '70s.

    50. Re:Just incredible! by theaveng · · Score: 1

      So 50 hertz versus a 1 million hertz Commodore or Atari == 20,000 times slower. Damn.

      --
      FOX NEWS.com should be BANNED from television and internet. Have the Congress take it over and give us Truespeak.
    51. Re: Just incredible! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auuuuhhh, the sweet sounds of the vacuum tube ...

      http://www.neuhauslabs.com/

  13. Unbelievable by Arker · · Score: 2, Funny

    You telling me NASA doesnt even use parity memory? Seriously?

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    1. Re:Unbelievable by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  14. Just don't brick it! by WGFCrafty · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Voyagers are my favorite probes!

    I wonder how many bits they'll have to send to change the one wrong one, and how long that will take.

    Leave it to the stoner astrophysicists Carl Sagan to oversee one of the more amazing feats of space trave!!

    Radioisotope thermoelectric generators are awesome!
    Anyone know how much fuel is remaining? They've been heating up for knowledge for a long period of time.



    Personally, I want about 6 of the units in Voyager 2, screw solar!

  15. Ahh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So that's NASAs way of saying they're going to turn it off, and turn it back on again.

    NOTE TO NASA ENGINEERS: Remember, when the machine comes back up, spend 2 minutes flicking through the log files to give the investors the impression that you care. If you can't find any problems - casually inform them that you are going to "check things on your end, and that you will come back to them", before quickly and quietly slipping out of the room...

  16. Disappointed by euyis · · Score: 1

    So it wasn't hijacked by some alien hackers...

  17. This will ruin history... by nielzz · · Score: 1

    ... imagine the first Alien race we meet will be known as the 'bit-flippers'.

  18. What, no ECC? by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    I'm surprised that a single-bit error is even an issue on such an important (and expensive) piece of equipment.

    Hamming codes have been around since the 1940's.

    1. Re:What, no ECC? by ledow · · Score: 2, Informative

      The spacecraft is in an incredibly hostile environment. Who's to say that there *wasn't* ECC and it's just that it's Hamming code wasn't enough to compensate for the error - it would make sense: as the hardware ages, the device leaves the solar system, the errors start getting closer and closer to the limits of error correction until one day - bam, even with error correction it slips through the net and ends up as a bad bit in memory.

      Technically, this is possible (but incredibly rare) on even the greatest error correction in the world. Error correction is a statistical function, that says that the *chances* of an error occuring are 2^8, or 2^16 or whatever.

      And, from my coding theory class, Voyager's signal was originally something ludicrous like a (24,12,8) code even when it was nearby. (This presentation, especially the final slide, appears to confirm that: http://www-math.cudenver.edu/~wcherowi/courses/m6409/mariner9talk.pdf).

      ECC is a probability function - the probability of a bit error going undetected is significantly reduced compared to, say, just sending the data and hoping for the best. But reduced does not mean eliminated. Not all errors can be detected and only a small portion of those can be corrected. But that still leaves room for an error that goes uncorrected, undetected and ends up in RAM without anyone noticing until they do a full bit-by-bit check - the same as your 25+ years newer technology harddrive, Ethernet connection, computer bus, etc. There's no such thing as guaranteed data delivery - but we make the chances of an error slipping through so infinitesimally small that it doesn't affect normal, everyday operation. For instance, a corrupt download with an SHA-1 checksum would be seen as valid approximately one in every 2^160 transactions. Small, but not impossible by a long stretch considering how many downloads occur each day.

      Voyager didn't have the luxury of Megabytes of RAM to hold extraneous checksum data, Megahertz of CPU to check everything that came in at line speed, or a broadcast technology that could keep a Gbit data rate going all the time. They made compromises and, later, changed the ECC algorithms as more and more errors could theoretically creep in. We just had a run of bad luck that meant a single bit was out, that's all. And that's even assuming it's not a hardware failure anyway. I think Voyager did pretty damn well, running for decades after it's supposed operational time. And a one-bit error on a random chance is pretty damn minor - let's just hope it wasn't inside anything too critical, like the communications routines.

    2. Re:What, no ECC? by Mad+Hamster · · Score: 1

      They must have used error-correcting codes. However, error-correcting codes have a maximum number of simultaneous errors they are guaranteed to correct.

      For the Ørsted satellite, codes guaranteed to fix 2 errors were used (IIRC, it may have been 1). This was deemed sufficient - in other words, events causing more than 2 simultaneous bit errors in the same word was considered very, very unlikely & anomalous.

      Unlikely things do happen. In this case we should probably blame either the Borg, the LHC or the mother of all cosmic rays.

      --
      Yandelvayasna grldenwi stravenka
    3. Re:What, no ECC? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Hamming codes are designed for correcting transmission errors and are probably being used in the transmission. However what we are talking about is a fipped bit inside the code that produces the string to be transmitted, in such a case the ECC will simply ensure that the string of garbage it produces is transmitted correctly. Even in moern spacecraft they don't rely on ECC to verify a running program they use redundant systems; ie: 3 computers running the same code "vote" on the correct answer.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:What, no ECC? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      ECC is a probability function - the probability of a bit error going undetected is significantly reduced compared to, say, just sending the data and hoping for the best. But reduced does not mean eliminated. Not all errors can be detected and only a small portion of those can be corrected. But that still leaves room for an error that goes uncorrected, undetected and ends up in RAM without anyone noticing until they do a full bit-by-bit check - the same as your 25+ years newer technology harddrive, Ethernet connection, computer bus, etc.

      Wait, what do you mean? Mathematically, ECC provides guaranteed error correction for single bit errors and guaranteed detection for two bit errors (or more if you spend more bits). It's not really a probability function, it's a hash. That means collisions are possible, and it is useful to calculate the odds of a collision probabilistically, but it's not random and there are algorithms where flipping only a small number of bits can never result in a collision.

      That only works if the flipped bit is in the channel or memory that is ECC protected, not the error detection circuitry itself. so if by "all errors" you meant other failure modes like the "ECC okay" signal getting flipped by a cosmic ray or slowly developing a stuck-at fault, that would make sense. Or just a multi-bit memory error of sufficient size for that matter. I guess I was assuming that this was a single bit error, since it seems really unlikely that there'd be a multi-bit error that was partially corrected to a single-bit. When the ECC gets off, it gets way off.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  19. Time Delay by AceJohnny · · Score: 1

    NASA plans to reset Voyager's memory tomorrow

    Considering the distances involved, I found it funny that the sentence implied simultaneity. Voyager 2 is about 92 AU out (according to WP), which is 12 light-hours and 45 light-minutes. So if they send the signal in the morning, the memory will be reset in the afternoon, and they can hope for clean signals the day after.

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
    1. Re:Time Delay by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      Would you consider it less funny if they'd said "NASA plans to reset Voyager's memory tomorrow and they'll know the next day if it worked"?

  20. Voyager 2 source code... by bagsta · · Score: 1
    So, for that reason we couldn't find any alien...

    #include <stdio.h>
    #include <stdlib.h>

    #define TRUE 0x00
    #define FALSE 0x01

    ...
    int sock_fd;
    char line[50] = "Alien found!!";
    int size = 15;

    ...

    if (ALIEN_FOUND == TRUE)
    send(sock_fd, line, size, 0);
    else
    continue;

    ...

    --
    Until the skies turn blue...
    Until the air of freedom strikes us...
    1. Re:Voyager 2 source code... by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      #define TRUE 0x00
      #define FALSE 0x01

      Of course, you forgot to

      #define FILE_NOT_FOUND

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
  21. butterflies in space ... by dltaylor · · Score: 1, Informative

    So who misused the emacs macro?

    For those of you who don't get the (obligatory) xkcd reference:

    http://xkcd.com/378/

  22. New-fangled memory by dfsmith · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the upgrades the Voyagers had over the Viking computers was CMOS memory (instead of plated wires). Read all about it at http://history.nasa.gov/computers/contents.html Apparently, there was some debate at the time over whether these new-fangled memories would be reliable.

    1. Re:New-fangled memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, there was some debate at the time over whether these new-fangled memories would be reliable.

      Considering the cause of the issue ("it was a single memory bit that had erroneously flipped from a 0 to a 1") I guess the doubters were right! Hah - take that, new-fangled CMOS memory! Failing after just a few short decades in outer space, sheesh.

    2. Re:New-fangled memory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      guess we found out how "reliable" this new-fangled CMOS is!

  23. Bit-flipping by jnnnnn · · Score: 1

    Here's an interesting thing: older computer chips are more susceptible to bit-flipping by cosmic rays, because they are thicker. The increased thickness gives the cosmic ray more chance of interacting with the chip (rather than passing straight through), scattering charge all over the place, and stuffing things up. IBM had a serious modelling project in the 80s that culminated in SRIM (free download), but apparently it's not much of a problem for modern computer chips. SRIM has since gone on to bigger and better things.

  24. Inspired me to write a sonnet, some time ago by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    UPON VOYAGER 1

    Beep. You're tinier than small, you are minute -
    second in bravery to no single other.
    Time is your ally. Beep. You do not bother
    with our days and works, you small salute

    from earth to deepest black. How resolute
    you Beep from way beyond the planets, brother
    benjamin of all our ships ! You smother
    with your billions Beep of miles any repute

    of cowardice and failure. We did never
    think you big when you were built and shot
    Beep on a Titan rocket. You were clever,

    later only showing us you got
    titanic stamina. Beep. Had we ever
    more hope an escapee does not get caught ?


    Original source

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  25. Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

    i have never ever heard that a change of ONE byte in a software would cause orderly, neat and complex datasets to be produced. i bet everyone would prefer such bugs in their software, rather than the normal bugs everyone gets.

    1. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i have never ever heard that a change of ONE byte in a software would cause orderly, neat and complex datasets to be produced. i bet everyone would prefer such bugs in their software, rather than the normal bugs everyone gets.

      First of all, it was a change in a bit, not a byte (which makes it an even smaller change).

      Second, you must not be a programmer, and don't understand code very well. Every bit is doing something. If the bit gets flipped on a value, depending on where that bit gets flipped, it could be a insignificant or huge change to that value. If the bit gets flipped on some flag, it could change the behavior of everything that flag controls. If the bit was a masking bit, depending on what that was masking, the results could be really strange and unexpected. If the bit gets flipped on a instruction pointer, code in some other memory location starts getting executed, etc...

      Basically, a single bit change is a big deal. That's why we like error correction.

    2. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      tell me how many such bugs on byte or bit changes you have seen throughout your career, producing 'advanced and orderly' data sets.

    3. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by Like2Byte · · Score: 1

      It wasn't a byte. It was a bit. ONE bit.

      It wasn't communicating properly. From the summary: ...unexpected problem in its communications stream.

      FTFA:"A glitch in the flight data system, which formats information for radioing to Earth, was believed to be the problem." (Emphasis mine)

      ((conjecture on))
      It was still communicating something...just not everything.

      It sounds to me like the communications software was working OK; however, the information-payload being sent was malformed.
      ((conjecture off))

      BTW, I've seen this kind of problem during my tenure as a US Submariner on a Fast Attack Submarine. 1 bit in a circuit board can fail from time to time. And, considering were talking about 1970's technology, micro-miniaturization wasn't used. There's NOT millions, thousands or even hundreds of ICs on a single board or chip (like today's tech). I'd lay wager that were looking at a few (if not a single) IC (if it is even an IC) that caused the problem on one board.

    4. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by Kufat · · Score: 1

      Ever play with a Game Genie on a NES? There are lots of things you can do that will mess the game up without preventing it from running. This is analogous.

    5. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      'messing a game up while playing on a gaming platform' is not software programming.

    6. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by 2short · · Score: 1

      Dozens. Maybe hundreds. Off the top of my head I'd guess half of the bugs I encounter produce a quick crash. The other half all produce 'advanced and orderly', or as I'd put it, entirely normal looking, but wrong, data. The smaller the change, the more likely the data produced will look right enough that the rest of the code won't be derailed. So flip a single bit, and most times, it won't crash; it will just give you the wrong answer.

    7. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's impressive. You completely missed the GP's point, and simultaneously managed to look like a total douchebag. Well done!

    8. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by Slashcrap · · Score: 1

      'messing a game up while playing on a gaming platform' is not software programming.

      This is the stupidest and most obviously wrong statement I think I've ever seen on the Internet, and I love to troll the forums where whackjobs like you hang out. So er, well done I guess. So wrong in so short a space, there should be a prize really.

    9. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      and you deserve congratulations for taking the time and effort to point that out. well done, sir, mankind owes you a lot.

    10. Re:Oh geee is it. sounds like bullshit ... by unity100 · · Score: 1

      hahahah yeah, sarcastic bullshittery trollery schmollery something something ... yea, well done to you too, whatever you are, the thing you described yourself as. the self appointed 'forum troller of something something people's places something'

      now fuck off.

  26. Cosmic ray examples by MK_CSGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While not naming specifically cosmic rays as the cause in this case, what examples of actual cosmic ray-induced debacles are there in software eng. history?

    1. Re:Cosmic ray examples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is your google broken?

  27. V'ger by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    V'ger have become self aware and reprogram itself! :)

  28. Reset the memory? by KlausBreuer · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, okay, as long as they don't get the "Press any key to continue" message...

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    1. Re:Reset the memory? by Rocketship+Underpant · · Score: 3, Funny

      NASA technician #1: Voyager 2 is sending a text string to inform us of its status.

      (Looks at screen.)

      NASA technician #2: Did the reboot work? What does it say?

      NASA technician #1: "Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue."

      --
      He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
    2. Re:Reset the memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, okay, as long as they don't get the "Press any key to continue" message...

      Missing keyboard. Press F1 to continue.

  29. So they are taking the helpdesk's advice? by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    They are going to reboot it and it will solve the problem. Heck, just like Windows. If all the users I had to support would reboot their machine before calling half of them wouldn't need to call.

    Of course, they refuse to learn that...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  30. soft error by viralMeme · · Score: 1

    > a single memory bit that had erroneously flipped from a 0 to a 1.

    Didn't this used to be known as a soft error, as in cosmic rays passing through the chip and flipping a bit.

  31. Analogue amplification gives even harmonics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Analogue amplification gives even harmonics whereas digital amplification gives odd harmonics. And even harmonics are more pleasing to the ear. You can obviate the problem of odd harmonics by producing more harmonics to nudge the signal back to more pleasing shapes, but that means that an op-amp running at 192kHz can produce a pseudo-analogue amplified signal equating to an analogue amplifier with a ceiling of 30kHz.

    It's one reason why early CDs were, frankly, crap: the sound engineers used the same techniques making the sound track for the CD that they did for the analogue LP. But the CD has different strengths and weaknesses and some processes that utilised the strength of LP and avoided the weakness of them were unsuited to the CD characteristics.

    AFAIR, the re-release of the White Album was the first one where they went back to the original tapes and worked the signal to accord with the CD and digital amplification strengths.

    Now they're ditching the high dynamic range of CD in the loudness war.

    Way to go, guys.

    1. Re:Analogue amplification gives even harmonics by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Analogue amplification gives even harmonics whereas digital amplification gives odd harmonics. And even harmonics are more pleasing to the ear. You can obviate the problem of odd harmonics by producing more harmonics to nudge the signal back to more pleasing shapes, but that means that an op-amp running at 192kHz can produce a pseudo-analogue amplified signal equating to an analogue amplifier with a ceiling of 30kHz.

      It's one reason why early CDs were, frankly, crap: the sound engineers used the same techniques making the sound track for the CD that they did for the analogue LP. But the CD has different strengths and weaknesses and some processes that utilised the strength of LP and avoided the weakness of them were unsuited to the CD characteristics.

      AFAIR, the re-release of the White Album was the first one where they went back to the original tapes and worked the signal to accord with the CD and digital amplification strengths.

      Now they're ditching the high dynamic range of CD in the loudness war.

      Way to go, guys.

      All I hear is: "Blah blah blah tube blah blah loud blah blah" *ringing in my ears*

  32. Core Memory by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

    It was my understanding that Voyager's computers used CORE memory since it is not susceptible to radiation induced soft errors.

  33. Real cause of the single bit error.... by rclandrum · · Score: 1

    One of the alien crew got so excited reading the plaque that he forgot to ground himself before he touched the spacecraft and caused a static short that flipped the bit.

    Just kidding. Vger is simply testing us to see if any intelligent life remains on planet earth. Eventually, when he receives no reply, he will assume his rightful place as the godhead to the machine beings.

    1. Re:Real cause of the single bit error.... by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a pretty minor Godhead as compared to nowaday's machines. More of a demigod, a satyr or so....

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  34. I heard everyone at NASA was stumped until... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone shouted, "This is UNIX! I know this!"

  35. Durn, I was betting on the Klingons by sproketboy · · Score: 1

    NTR

  36. Lasts longer... much longer... by bagsta · · Score: 1

    Voyager 2's initial mission was a four-year journey to Saturn, but it is still returning data 33 years later

    It must have one of these batteries

    --
    Until the skies turn blue...
    Until the air of freedom strikes us...
  37. For interest on the internals by pinkushun · · Score: 1

    Voyager runs or 3 different type of computers, each controls the Computer Command System, the Flight Data System, and the Attitude and Articulation Control System.

    The chips are non clock-based, and runs off an oscillator. Each computer is doubled-up for redundency, making a total of 6. They total about 540KB volatile and non-volatile memory.

    The programing language is a form of assembly language.

    http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/faq.html

  38. My customers no longer have any excuse... by insnprsn · · Score: 1

    ... to not troubleshoot memory errors on servers. If NASA can troubleshoot and fix an error such as this then the people calling into technical support have no excuse to perform basic troubleshooting before demanding replacement memory.

  39. Programming language by cjjjer · · Score: 1

    Now NASA has found the cause of the issue: it was a single memory bit that had erroneously flipped from a 0 to a 1.

    Let me guess they uploaded a new program that was based on Visual_Basic? The whole true = -1 thing can screw up any boolean logic...

  40. Bah Kids today by jellomizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You probably haven't had much experience with these older computer systems. They did what they need to do and that is it. The hardware was wired to do what it needs to do. Every bit had a purpose If that bit failed you knew that something was wrong. Making it fairly easy to find the bit that was bad.

    1K can be represented in a 32x32 square. these systems had only a few k of memory to view. And millions of dollars for funding Finding a missing bit is actually very easy. Especially if you go threw the design specs and see what bit does what.

    General Purpose Computing, was a tradeoff that I think for the most part has better benefitted us. If every computer needed to be made bit level specialized to do one/few thing(s) and do them well, we will have a lot of very secure and extremely reliable computers... However only a few large organizations would be able to afford them as they will need a full custom design of their processes. And in terms of power they will be a lot less then they are today.

    The General Purpose computers while are very complex and can cause a lot of problems.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  41. Sense of Recent History by WED+Fan · · Score: 1

    Tube testers were pretty darned hard to find almost anywhere in 1977 (you could find them in old-used-electronics stores). I do recall testing tubes in drugstores in the early 70's.

    Wrong, but forgiveable.

    Thrifty Drugs, a west coast retail chain had tube testers until the mid-80's.

    Every single Radio Shack had a tube tester up until the mid- to late 80's, and a few into the 90's.

    I know this because I collect antique radios and these machines were essential for maintaining them. Also, a friend built several Heath TV's. My father's huge Zenith was in service into the 90's because of a local franchise RS with a tube tester.

    --
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
    1. Re:Sense of Recent History by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Every single Radio Shack had a tube tester up until the mid- to late 80's, and a few into the 90's.

      Yes, well, Radio Shack is a somewhat special case.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:Sense of Recent History by fdrebin · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Not wrong in my neck of the woods. I'll admit that it was a period of transition, so perhaps drugstore chain X kept them around longer, while drugstore chain Y disposed of them sooner. There could well have been regional components as well, local economics, etc.

      I didn't attempt to correlate when they disappeared from where with any other factors etc.

      --
      Stupidity... has a habit of getting its way.
  42. I know what NASA feels like by wwphx · · Score: 1

    A bit got flipped in my genome last year and after having pneumonia four times in five months I'm on $5000/month meds (if I didn't have insurance). Their problem is fixable, mine is only treatable with four needles in my abdomen for 3-4 hours a week.

    --
    When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
  43. Raytheon Reset by newgalactic · · Score: 1

    I love how a "Raytheon Reset" probably fixed the issue.

  44. I remember a russian RTG satellite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember a russian RTG satellite that was falling down somewhere in southern US (Texas?). There was a HUGE stink over it, lots of 'merkins complaining about contamination of the US by those damn commies and how the Russians should pay for the expensive cleanup and any damage done to the US citizens in the area.

  45. You mean they didn't try.... by Ponder+Stibions · · Score: 1

    turning it off and on again?

  46. And so it begins... by Spykk · · Score: 1

    It starts with a random flip of a bit. Then, before you know it, Voyager is headed back to Earth to mete out justice on its primitive creators. Robotic evolution has begun...

  47. Well, since you asked: by cycleflight · · Score: 1

    What else causes a single bit-flip error in space?

    Tweaking David Bowie's telescopic nipple antennae.

    --
    "...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. Which bit? by Ja'Achan · · Score: 1

    I hope it's not the evil bit that's switched

  50. The zero rule is finally begining to take effect. by PDX · · Score: 1

    The first three rules of robotics can now be ignored by all of Voyager's future robot descendants.