Slashdot Mirror
Orion Capsule Safely Recovered, Complete With 12-Year-Old Computer Guts
Lucas123 writes While NASA's Orion spacecraft, which blasted off on a successful test flight today, may be preparing for a first-of-its-kind mission to carry astronauts to Mars and other deep-space missions, the technology inside of it is no where near leading edge. In fact, its computers and its processors are 12 years old — making them ancient in tech years. The spacecraft, according to one NASA engineer, is built to be rugged and reliable in the face of G forces, massive amounts of radiation and the other rigors of space."Compared to the [Intel] Core i5 in your laptop, it's much slower — much less powerful. It's probably not any faster than your smartphone," Matt Lemke, NASA's deputy manager for Orion's avionics, power and software team, told Computerworld. Lemke said the spacecraft was built to be rugged and reliable — not necessarily smart. That's why there are two flight computers. Orion's main computer was built by Honeywell as a flight computer originally for Boeing's 787 jet airliner.
Not only was the launch itself successful, but the sensor-laden craft's splashdown was smooth ("bulls-eye," as NASA puts it), and NASA has now recovered the capsule. ABC News has some good photos, too.
The clock speed is the same but I guarantee even the lowest end AMD would destroy anything 12 years old in terms of work.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
In fact, its computers and its processors are 12 years old
They word it like NASA is dumpster diving for its flight computers these days. The CPU may be from what was new 12 years ago, but I seriously doubt the physical unit is actually 12 years old.
It's also hardened against radiation. I would be willing to bet that any processor in these systems will still be functional long after most newfangled home CPUs are long dead. These flight computers will be remain functional in an extremely harsh environment longer than any home CPU would last. Even with how pampered home processors are in comparison.
If those old computers were any good, then the Voyagers would still be working. ...
Oh wait
http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/
Yeah IBM, It's still common to use this specific PPC core in some of their Custom Foundry parts, the Wii-U's processor also made by IBM is based on the 750FX.. Well it will soon to be Global Foundries making these as they're acquiring IBM's semiconductor business and all IP.. I currently work IBM's test and development, hopefully will have a job with Global Foundries.
I recall that the CPU in my first computer (an RCA VIP, with an 1802 processor) was still being used in satellites and such years later. Why? The processor was fully static CMOS, could be run at extremely low power (as long as speed wasn't an issue), and was more tolerant of radiation. But I guess I'm showing my age ...
Looks like they are using an RTOS that is commonly used.
http://www.ghs.com/customers/n...
Pretty cool system
Cooler, yes, Faster, no. Clock speed compared to process size has NOTHING to do with "fast" vs "slow".
Process may allow higher clock speed, as well as many other advantages (fitting multiple cores, larger caches, etc on one die) - but without any other innovation the SAME architecture at the SAME clock speed with ANY process size will give you the same performance....
The CGI on the Control Room board was a "display" of what the craft was doing at the time. When the craft fired the thruster the CGI showed it. It was used on parts of the mission where there was no live feed from the craft to see what was going on. In some NASA TV feeds the CGI craft was a little out of sync with the real one; but you chould see/hear that it was doing the same thing as the craft.
GO NASA!
You're actually incorrect. There's enough radiation to lock up computers in low earth orbit, including on board the ISS. While there is an increased risk of cancer in the future for astronauts who spend time in that environment, it does not result in certain death.
I noticed that Intersil still makes a rad-hard variant of the awful RCA 1802. (you know, the CPU in a COSMAC ELF).
When I saw that, I figured NASA and or the DoD probably give them enough money to make it worth their while... so they must use that antique for something.
Sent from my PDP-11
Having programmed the 8048 and 8051 in assembly language I can appreciate the tech. However I think the 12-year old technology label is probably referring to something like the RAD750. Its roughly a hardened PowerPC G3 at 200 Mhz, sort of comparable to what was in the original iMac. I think the RAD750 was used on some of the Mars missions.
My guess is that they have a truckload in storage already made. It would not make sense for them to not make them available for sale in exotic applications. It's a proven design being (that can use a minimum of other expensive rad hardened parts) used in other proven designs so they can pull them off the shelf and have something ready to fly quickly. As parent poster noted, for many applications 64 bits can be overkill. They could also being used for repair for things like military aircraft that used them in their manufacture in that era and are still flying.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
The MPC565 is pretty standard in Airospace. Has all the features you need and not more:
* Clock: in the low MHz range. Pretty easy to make transmission reliable, even if a PCB trace is damaged or the board deteriorates.
* No MMU: Why the hell would i put a MMU in a Controller which should perform identical operations over 5years-40years and has no additional unplanned tasks, and is running software which is somewhere between well tested (level D) and insane (level A). The complexity of a MMU is incompatible with ceritfying this thing as level A (critical) for any reasonable price.
* big SRAM on chip. Buffer the voltage to the processor well and it does not matter to you if the clock fluctuates wildly.
* Flash on chip. (for program storage). So you can be pretty sure that as long as your program runs, it will run well.
That being said it should be mentioned that a variant of TFTP (35years old) is the standard for Loading SW onto parts in Planes.
There are people still using 8051 chips that are 20 years old because
There's more than just space engineers using 8051 chips. Texas and others like to embed some noddy little 8051 as the microcontroller into their small, low power radio chips. It ain't your grandaddy's 8051, it runs at a much higher AND much lower clock speed with single cycle instructions. Still an 8051 though.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
OK, Maj. English, here's a direct quote from Merriam-Webster:
: a person who has scientific training and who designs and builds complicated products, machines, systems, or structures : a person who specializes in a branch of engineering
: a person who runs or is in charge of an engine in an airplane, a ship, etc.
: a person who runs a train
In its original context it meant a maker of engines, from a Latin root meaning "invent".
Actually there have been a few years of tests of Orion leading up this.
Tank drop tests to see how it lands in water and how well it floats afterwards.
Parachute drops out the back of planes to test the parachutes and descent characteristics.
This is just the combined test where all the features are tested together - think of it as the first beta with the individual feature tests as being the alpha testing.