Slashdot Mirror


Looking At the Hardware and Software of NASA's New Horizons (imgtec.com)

alexvoica writes: Last week we learnt that Pluto has blue skies and ice water thanks to a series of high-resolution images provided by the New Horizons probe. But how is the probe taking these photographs and sending them back to NASA? What hardware and software systems are inside and who built them? Luckily, the New Horizons engineering team kindly answered these questions (and many others) in a detailed interview.

Here are some fun facts from my discussion with the engineers. The chipset: It might sound strange to some but NASA used to be a chip maker. Before using standard MIPS or Intel CPUs for probes like New Horizons, NASA had to design custom-built processors since the commercial solutions available at the time were not designed to handle the intense workloads of space travel. Inside New Horizons we find a radiation-hardened, MIPS-based Mongoose-V processor worth $40,000 apiece and built using a grant from the Goddard Space Flight Center. The camera: New Horizons has a multispectral 1 megapixel camera; sending a single 1200 x 900 image back to earth takes approximately 3-4 hours. The comms: Forget 4G LTE, New Horizons uses the very best! The probe relies on NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) to make its long-distance calls. DSN is the largest and most sensitive scientific telecom system in the world and was also used to guide the astronauts aboard the Apollo 13 mission back to earth. Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon remain forever grateful. The memory: New Horizons includes 16GB of flash memory which provides plenty of storage space for photos and other scientific data. The operating system: New Horizons runs on Nucleus, a popular operating system designed by Mentor Graphics. Coincidentally, Nucleus is also at the heart of the ARTIK 1 platform for IoT launched by Samsung only a few months ago.

76 comments

  1. Last I heard... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    NASA was buying Intel 486 processors for the space shuttles from eBay.

    1. Re: Last I heard... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The glass cockpit used 386 professors which were not too uncommon in aerospace embedded use. The processors were produced until 2007 anyway.

  2. Diplomacy FTW by willworkforbeer · · Score: 3, Funny

    relies on NASA's Deep Space Network (DSN) to make its long-distance calls.

    Good to see the alliance with Bajor is paying dividends.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  3. US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why not just use an off-the-shelf processor and put the PCBs in shielded, shock mounted enclosures?

    1. Re:US $40K processor by willworkforbeer · · Score: 0

      Why not just use an off-the-shelf processor and put the PCBs in shielded, shock mounted enclosures?

      Allow us to introduce to you government purchasing system... Before viewing prices, we suggest you put your tray tables in the upright position so that there are no obstacles when you reflexively smack yourself in the forehead.

      --
      Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
    2. Re:US $40K processor by avandesande · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because the shielding you are thinking of does nothing in space. Radiation hardening BTW has nothing to do with shielding.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    3. Re:US $40K processor by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      "shielded, shock mounted enclosures" aren't going to do anything against 1+ GeV protons.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    4. Re:US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because then you have to launch a shielded, shock-mounted enclosure to Pluto. Which probably costs > 40k. And it would probably be less reliable.

      It's just about using the right tool for the job.

    5. Re:US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very thick shielding might, but then it will be way too heavy :P

    6. Re:US $40K processor by cnaumann · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Radiation shielding in space is harder than you might think. You can't just add a thin lead sheet or other dense material around critical circuits and be done. When photons get above a certain energy level, they pretty much blast through anything dense. What you really need for shielding for those types of high energy photons is a _really_ thick layer of low density shielding, say several miles of a gas under about 1 atmosphere of pressure. But this is simply not practical on today's spacecraft. There are other approaches to shielding such as layering high and low density materials, but in a spacecraft shielding is always limited by volume and mass constraints.

      The other option is to deal with radiation by building chips with redundancy. The idea is that if one part of the circuit gets temporarily zapped, two other parts are still functional and the majority is probably the correct answer. You also build the electronics so that if everything goes south they can reboot and recover.

      NASA knows what they are doing here!

    7. Re:US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The Russians build this way.

      NASA spent something like 1.2 billion dollars on a pen that can write in space when the Russians just used pencils.

      This is the advantage of a centrally-managed economy. This type of economic system is more efficient, resistant to fraud, and is much more agile than having a huge, lumbering military-industrial complex.

      This is why China will eat the US's lunch in a just a few years.

    8. Re:US $40K processor by Rei · · Score: 2

      If by "very thick shielding" you mean a meter of concrete....

      There's good reason that they use radiation-hardened processors on space probes. Shielding is an impractical way to deal with the problem.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    9. Re:US $40K processor by nullchar · · Score: 2

      The "space pen vs pencil" is a fallacy. Read about the real history where NASA did not invent the zero-g pen, but an entrepreneur did: http://www.woot.com/blog/post/...

    10. Re:US $40K processor by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Informative

      -1 Idiotic and Stupid.

      NASA never spent any money on a pen, the Fisher pen company decided to make a "space pen" all by themselves using private capital. The pen was adopted by NASA, and later by the Soviets/Russians. Pencils are dangerous in space "because of the substantial dangers that broken pencil tips and graphite dust pose to electronics in zero gravity, the flammable nature of wood present in pencils, and the inadequate quality documentation produced by non-permanent or smeared recordkeeping".

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    11. Re:US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your information is very wrong. So wrong it's hard to imagine you aren't lying to promote some ideological position.

      Source: space physicist

    12. Re:US $40K processor by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Hell, I'm wondering why NASA just doesn't send up an iPhone and pay the LD charge? Or doesn't NASA trust an Irish business?

    13. Re:US $40K processor by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is a myth. But the myth is grounded on real differences in approaches between the Soviets and the US at the time. Two examples:

      I had a friend who went as part of a US military team as a translator during one of those mutual nuclear disarmament treaties in the 80s. The Soviets had sent their own team to the US. Each team was allowed to inspect any area large enough to conceal a "treaty-limited item", which was carefully laid out in the treaty. So the US team was sent over with laser measuring devices to figure out what they could inspect and what they couldn't. The Soviets thought the devices were really clever. What their teams had been sent over with was... a stick. If the stick fit, they could inspect it.

      Another example: in the US, you know how if you get pulled over (at least at the time), the police officer would take your license back to the police car, key the number into a computer or radio it to someone who would key it in, this would look up the number in a central database for existing violations (letting them know if they needed to for example take the license away), then it'd register the new violation in the database, the officer would then get all the info, print up or write up the ticket using that, and hand the license back, right? The Soviet system was a bit... simpler. The officer would take your license and punch a hole in it. If you had too many holes, they'd keep it. ;)

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    14. Re:US $40K processor by petermgreen · · Score: 2

      A couple of things to consider

      1: For certain types of radiation shielding can actually make things worse. Very high energy particles tend to go right through matter without interacting at all but when they *do* hit something they can create a storm of lower energy particles. Sometimes these particles can have a higher probability of causing problems than the original high energy particle did.
      2: Getting mass out of the gravity well is expensive. $40K may seem like a lot to us mere mortals but it's trivial compared to the cost of sending even a few kilos on a trajectory out of the solar system.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    15. Re:US $40K processor by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      What would be the outcome of just using a smart phone? One could offer an H1B visa to anyone that has an app for operating the phone-camera remotely. And purchase the phone in Peking. The outcome would be the entire Indian population would move to Irvine, and the Long Distance charges would cancel out the U.S.'s debt to China; it's a win-win-win scenario.

    16. Re:US $40K processor by necro81 · · Score: 1

      My favorite is the "vault" they constructed for the electronics on the Juno mission to Jupiter. Because that mission regularly dips into the radiation belts around the planet, even the best rad-hardened processor would not survive. Over the mission lifetime, it'll have to survive the equivalent of 100 million dental x-rays. NASA's solution: 200 kg of titanium. (Lead would have been too soft to survive launch. Other materials, such as tungsten, are relatively difficult to work with. Titanium is a well-understood.)

      More details here.

    17. Re:US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if all the police cared about were traffic violations, sure the soviets way would be better. however, if there were warrants out for arrest, the radio could inform the officer and make the arrest. the soviets would let them go after punching the license

    18. Re:US $40K processor by rogoshen1 · · Score: 2

      really? i thought the soviet (and now Russian) worked like this: Officer pulls you over, and then they take all the rubles in your wallet. If this sum wasn't sufficient, then they'd punch holes in you, and/or take you (to Siberia).

    19. Re:US $40K processor by sjames · · Score: 1

      There is shielding, but to protect the hardware adequately to use regular server parts, it would be huge and heavy.

    20. Re:US $40K processor by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Funny but no. Well, at least not in the post-Stalin years. There's a lot of that sentimentality still lingering about but, no... They kind of tamed a bit once Khrushchev came into power and then got marginally better as time progressed. That sort of sentiment might be a bit more close to the truth with Mao, however. Or Pol Pot, I guess.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    21. Re:US $40K processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It showed up in other ways... With the unification of Germany, western aircraft engineers were excited about the prospects of finally learning about russian fighter jet g-suit technology. Despite the west having massive technical advances in g-suits, russian pilots could still hold the g's with the best of them.
      They were a little shocked when they discovered the russian solution. The russians discovered that the ability to withhold g-forces was directly related to the distance between your brain and your heart, so simply chose pilots no more than 5 foot tall.

  4. NASA Built Silicon Valley by Kagato · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the dawn of Silicon Valley the fabs counted on NASA and Military orders. For quite a long time they could count on 70+% of the production going towards NASA and military contracts. Almost no one else could afford the products at the time. Eventually Intel broke that mold by making a huge bet that they could slash the product costs and a wave of volume would follow to make the price point profitable. It was a huge risk.

    1. Re:NASA Built Silicon Valley by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      That's true of much of history. Metallurgy was advanced largely in the process of making weapons; as were rockets, airplanes, (early) electronic computers, compilers, etc.

      War and porn are the two pillars of R&D, early adopters, and funding. Technology depends on wankers or things that work/look like wankers.

      The resources and vast testing for the V2 rocket was incredible for the time. Rockets went from toys to space-capable in about 5 years.

  5. That summary by nitehawk214 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, what the fuck is going on there?

    The comms: Forget 4G LTE, New Horizons uses the very best!
    Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon remain forever grateful.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:That summary by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Since they were using commercial services as comparisons, I wonder why they didn't make reference to Comcast:

      sending a single 1200 x 900 image back to earth takes approximately 3-4 hours

    2. Re:That summary by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I'm still thinking an array of 9 smart phones could do the job. If one gets zapped by a particle or 2, then remote reboot that phone.

    3. Re:That summary by Yunzil · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they forgot Bill Paxton.

    4. Re:That summary by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      I remember a plan some years ago to use a cube of cheap processors. Most times you'd lose one or two to a single high-energy particle event, in the expected worst case, you'd lose three, and the others would keep running while the others rebooted.

      Don't think it ever went anywhere.

      Going back to the Apollo Guidance Computer, it used checkpointing so you could reboot it at any time and it would just continue where it left off. The developers used to randomly reboot while running tests, and the boot was so fast you'd barely notice anything happening.

    5. Re:That summary by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      The comms: Forget 4G LTE, New Horizons uses the very best!

      The fine article compares the spacecraft's systems to a few cellphones. Thus, the submitter decided to take the insightful analogy and make it funny. We can laugh at him now.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:That summary by alexvoica · · Score: 1

      I am the author of the article, the submitter and the person who is replying to your comment. I guess comedy is not my strong suit?

    7. Re:That summary by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Your guess is correct. It's not my strong suit either.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    8. Re:That summary by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      I am the author of the article, the submitter and the person who is replying to your comment. I guess comedy is not my strong suit?

      The article was well-written and I found only one glaring problem with it: the lack of a label on the X-axis of the CPU speed graph. Always label your axes!

      The second paragraph of the /. summary was written in a different style than were the first paragraph and the fine article. It is sloppy, colloquial, and even contains an obvious product placement. In contrast to the fine article, the /. summary was insulting to the reader. That might be fine on proletariat websites, but on a site populated by the /. demographic (engineers and generally older aged) I wouldn't suggest it.

      That said, thank you for the informative article! I enjoyed it and learned some things. And it is obvious by the way that you read and respond to the comments here that you take interest in improving your writing. I look forward to reading your future works.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    9. Re:That summary by alexvoica · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the feedback. I specifically used the words "fun" and "fact" in the second paragraph since I was trying to mix the two. I can see that it wasn't to everyone's liking, I'll try to keep it more dry and factual next time.

    10. Re:That summary by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      ...I can see that it wasn't to everyone's liking...

      You will have a hard time finding a more fastidious audience than on Slashdot!

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  6. Learnt? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    We we learnt us some good English too while we were at it?

    1. Re:Learnt? by turkeydance · · Score: 2

      we sha 'nuff did.

    2. Re:Learnt? by Rei · · Score: 2

      He speech real sofistacated-like.

      --
      The War of 1812... the good 'ol days when the federal government actually tried to save New Orleans.
    3. Re:Learnt? by alexvoica · · Score: 1

      We we learnt us some good English too while we were at it?

      Yeah, we kinda did. http://grammarist.com/spelling... Regards, Alex.

  7. Nucleus/Mentor graphics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't this the company who did the SciTech universal VESA drivers for DOS?

  8. This is disgusting Republican... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    corporate welfare. For the price of one of those CPUs, we could provide nearly a thousand months of WIC. Of course, CONservatives would rather starve a child than give-up their welfare.

    1. Re: This is disgusting Republican... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Republicans are literally willing to kill a thousand babies just to buy one CPU.

    2. Re: This is disgusting Republican... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is why you should never vote for one of their kind.

  9. Nucleus? Motorola version stunk... by kbonin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A decade ago I spent about two years on an embedded system running Nucleus, spent several months fixing bugs in the threading primitives, including the core spin-lock mutex that worked about 99.999% of the time under low-load conditions, but whose failure rate rose rapidly with load to about 2%. So much fun. Parts of that codebase looked like they were written by very low skill programmers.

    1. Re:Nucleus? Motorola version stunk... by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah I came here to say the exact same thing.
      Nucleus is NOT the embedded OS I would use for anything serious or really, for anything.
      There are so many other good options. Micro C OS, vxWorks, and QNX all come to mind as better options.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:Nucleus? Motorola version stunk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've managed high reality aerospace software design. We don't do things like multithreading, and spinlocks are verbotent. Most of what we did was on real memory machines. If it's okay for your software to crash, don't go with an RTOS in the 21st century. If it's life safety critical, don't hire anyone who learned to code in the 21st century.

    3. Re:Nucleus? Motorola version stunk... by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      If it's okay for your software to crash, don't go with an RTOS in the 21st century. If it's life safety critical, don't hire anyone who learned to code in the 21st century.

      Seriously, mod parent up.

    4. Re:Nucleus? Motorola version stunk... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not convinced I would classify VxWorks as a particularly good option...

  10. Off the shelf isn't always the best approach by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why not just use an off-the-shelf processor and put the PCBs in shielded, shock mounted enclosures?

    Several reasons. 1) Weight matters. Adding shielding and enclosures adds weight and thus cost. Sometimes the cost of the component is dwarfed by the cost to launch said component. 2) Off the shelf hardware doesn't always work for applications like these for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's fine but not always. 3) A lot of this stuff was developed a LONG time ago and has to work with a lot of legacy systems. Off the shelf solutions don't always work for some of the problems they face. 4) Once they have a proven design, it is a non-trivial task to get a new piece of hardware qualified.

    1. Re:Off the shelf isn't always the best approach by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      And let's be honest, a $40k processor isn't really going to drive up the price of the project very much.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. false and false, btw. A joke taken seriously. Real by raymorris · · Score: 2

    Btw since some people take that joke seriously, here's what actually happened :

    NASA spent dozens of dollars buying pens built to write upside down. After selling a handful of "upside down" pens to NASA, the company started marketing it as the "Space Pen".

    Initially, the Russians had a problem with cosmonauts inhaling graphite dust as they wrote, until they too spent $20 on pens.

    On the other hand, the AVERAGE time between when the federal government orders a PC until it's booted is 4 1/2 years. So they order (and pay for) new computers, which are mostly deprecated by the time they power on for the first time. These bureaucratic delays create an opportunity for suppliers. They get a contract at market price for current-gen computer specs, then years later deliver outdated and therefore cheaper equipment.

  12. Re:$40,000.00 CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop calling everything you don like fraud. This is not fraud. Cost plus acquisition or sole supplier.

  13. development process for can NOT fail? by raymorris · · Score: 2

    I'm curious what the development process is, especially for the software. It seems to me it would be very bad to have a bug show up while you're trying to image Pluto. It has to be reliable and bug-free, to the greatest extent possible. What techniques and processes are used to have a high degree of confidence that the code they are developing is absolutely correct? Are some of those processes applicable to other types of software development, in which finding and fixing bugs is expensive, though not nearly as expensive?

    1. Re:development process for can NOT fail? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      One of the biggest techniques they use is code reuse. The project managers don't like to try anything that hasn't been used on another probe or something.
      Another technique they use is extreme simplicity. Try to avoid if statements in for loops, as an example.
      Another technique they use is redundancy.
      Another technique is restarting often (which sounds weird, but it's basically what we do every time a web request comes in......each request starts with clean state).

      These techniques are discussed in the book mentioned in my sig.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:development process for can NOT fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My project wasn't NASA, but NGAS. We start with high level design requirements (must take a picture with this angle, must measure from this to this brightness linearly, must have this resolution on the surface, must measure in these particular spectrum) and then break it down level by level. We have 5-6 levels of design documents, and every input and output at every level of design is very well described. By the time the design documents are finished, programming is generally very simple. We then do robust unit testing at every level as we build the system back up, and then unfuck the major design flaws by going back through that design procress. It's slow, it's expensive, it's painful, the only software written 80% of the way into the process is the unit tests, but when you really can't have it fail, the software engineering is much, much more important than the programming.

      We use real memory machines (malloc can fail), strict typed languages (generally assembler), test almost every possible input to every routine (including implausible ones) and our project, about 20M SLOC, finds about 2 bugs/year out in the wild, most appear to be triggered by single bit errors inside the processor (we don't have rad-hard processors; we use triple-string redundancy instead).

    3. Re:development process for can NOT fail? by charlesj68 · · Score: 2

      A lot of it is (was?) governed by SEI CMM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Like all things, implemented well, it gave you a continuously improving development environment, implemented badly (at the behest of PHBs) it resulted in death by documentation and process.

    4. Re:development process for can NOT fail? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      For the Space Shuttle, this article describes the process pretty well. Of course, the first release of the Shuttle flight software cost half a billion dollars.

    5. Re:development process for can NOT fail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is an old but very good article about the software development process at NASA: https://www.fastcompany.com/28121/they-write-right-stuff

    6. Re:development process for can NOT fail? by AntiSol · · Score: 1

      Testing, well-specced requirements, testing, and then more testing.

      Every piece of the software is tested to exhaustion by a separate group to the one who wrote it.

      During the Rogers Commission to investigate the Challenger disaster, Richard Feynman was critical of NASA's approach to engineering. The only group he had good things to say about was the software team.

      From: http://duartes.org/gustavo/blog/post/richard-feynman-challenger-disaster-software-engineering/

      The software is checked very carefully in a bottom-up fashion. First, each new line of code is checked, then sections of code or modules with special functions are verified. The scope is increased step by step until the new changes are incorporated into a complete system and checked. This complete output is considered the final product, newly released. But completely independently there is an independent verification group, that takes an adversary attitude to the software development group, and tests and verifies the software as if it were a customer of the delivered product.

      To summarize then, the computer software checking system and attitude is of the highest quality. There appears to be no process of gradually fooling oneself while degrading standards so characteristic of the Solid Rocket Booster or Space Shuttle Main Engine safety systems. To be sure, there have been recent suggestions by management to curtail such elaborate and expensive tests as being unnecessary at this late date in Shuttle history.

      ...And that second quote pretty much answers the rest of your question too: "Are some of those processes applicable to other types of software development"

      The answer is that technically it's possible, but just try getting a manager or client to approve the expenditure for this type of process and an entire separate testing team. It generally only happens where there's a potential for lives to be lost.

      Interestingly, all NASA spacecraft still have all their debugging routines left in them when they fly. The reason for this is that removing the debugging routines would require another round of testing an certification, and that wouldn't be possible without the debugging routines.

      There's a link to feynman's full report in the article, too ("Avionics" is the relevant part).

  14. Boo Boo Analytics by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I'd like to ask what mistakes or flaws caused the "overload" problem a week before the main encounter. I would think a simulator (mirror) would catch it. It seems either they didn't use a simulator, or the simulator somehow got out of sync with the real probe. I suppose fake data may take up a different amount of storage space than the real probe, and wonder if that was the cause for the difference.

    Also, I wonder about the emotions of the people involved when the probe locked up 1 week from The Big Game.

    1. Re:Boo Boo Analytics by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Amusing, your comment reminded me of the opening movie scene with Kevin Bacon in it; the movie is titled "Animal House"

  15. Re: $40,000.00 CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    More likely has to do with low production varient and certification. I've seen plenty of lab equipment pieces where the cost of calibration and certification testing that the actual item is up to certain quality standards will dwarf the original item cost. And getting a less common varient adds a zero to the cost easily when talking about a small production size for something with huge production setup costs.

  16. Tired urban legends by sjbe · · Score: 1

    NASA spent something like 1.2 billion dollars on a pen that can write in space when the Russians just used pencils.

    No, NASA did not spend billions on a pen and neither the Russians nor NASA use pencils in space. Broken pencil leads (actually graphite) would be a hazard and not permitted on spaceflights. NASA never spent a penny on developing a pen that would work in space.

    This is the advantage of a centrally-managed economy. This type of economic system is more efficient, resistant to fraud, and is much more agile than having a huge, lumbering military-industrial complex.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH.... Efficient and resistant to fraud? Best laugh I've had all day.

    This is why China will eat the US's lunch in a just a few years.

    Yeah, having 5X the population and low labor costs has nothing to do with China's success... [/sarcasm]

  17. Incremental costs by sjbe · · Score: 1

    And let's be honest, a $40k processor isn't really going to drive up the price of the project very much.

    Hell, 15 years ago that was the price of a Silicon Graphics Octane workstation which I had on my desk. You are quite correct that while $40K is a lot of money, it isn't really that much compared to the budgets of the projects such chips get used for. The New Horizons mission cost about $700 million if memory serves. For a project that you have to get right the first time, $40K for a proven processor is kind of a steal actually.

    1. Re:Incremental costs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had a 40K Octane on your desk, then you had a very low-end Octane. You were probably a code monkey, right??

  18. SGI Octane by sjbe · · Score: 1

    If you had a 40K Octane on your desk, then you had a very low-end Octane. You were probably a code monkey, right??

    Nope. Used it for discrete event simulation and 3D modeling. Some VR work as well. All automotive engineering related. We also had an SGI Onyx as well as an Origin 2000 in my department as well. By the time I left that job you could get a desktop PC workstation for $6K that was faster for most tasks. I liked SGI hardware but it was ludicrously overpriced.

  19. workloads? by darthsilun · · Score: 1

    NASA had to design custom-built processors since the commercial solutions available at the time were not designed to handle the intense workloads of space travel.

    workloads? l do know (I worked at JPL for six years in the late 80s and early 90s) that commercial chips were not designed to handle the harsh environment of space.

    Inside New Horizons we find a radiation-hardened, MIPS-based Mongoose-V processor worth $40,000 apiece.

    A thing is worth exactly what someone else will pay for it. To me that processor isn't worth a hill of beans, even if NASA may have paid $40K for them. Back when I was at JPL one of the rad hardened CPUs that was available, IIRC, was the NSC 32000 – a NatSemi part that was a near clone of the Motorola 68000.

  20. Re:$40,000.00 CPU by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ITT: Fucking morons who clearly know nothing about space-survivable electronics, but won't let their ignorance prevent them from putting their mouths in drive.

  21. - Jew world fakes - by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no difference. All countries' are owned by JEWS. After the scum Jew bolsheviks tortured and mass murdered over 100 Million nordic white russians, poles, ukraines, it has not changed. The jews took Russia using americum 'tax' to pay for it, the same time the jews and scum jew 'allies' made up 'war two', getting 20 million nordic whites to kill each other at the direction of jews, for the jew takeover of Europe. The bogus 'usa' was a jew scam from the start, look at the bogus 'founders' faces, all JEW cons in the tribe. Their bogus 'constitution' proven a fraud http://jim.com/treason.htm copy page, ignore rest of site, sites bait with L. Spooner then use other bs to distract from the fact that we are free. All 'law' is based on contract between men. There is no other form of law. Any other claim of 'law' is but cons making up fraud papers to dictate 'laws' to 'tax' and kill you. The jews made up every lie, 'founders' bs, bogus 'founders' didn’t 'found' anything, and dupes just went along. There 'countries' illusion is going away. You will see when masses are dying by the virus the jews sprayed in the chemtrails that's going to show effect soon.

    The jews/jew putin are still slaughtering ukraines. Idiots swallow jew media bs, the reason for the jew putin attack on ukraine is because the ukraines were trying to throw the jews out of their government. Everyone sits on their ass watching. Same as ameriscums did when jews did 911 and fed the 'muslims' meme so ameriscums paid and still pay for the scum troops to slaughter the middle east, who were also trying to be free of the jew and fake 'israel'.
      - Just like everyone else who isn't dying will be 'watching' when 'ameriscums' are being slaughtered by the jew.

    Also, all these stories are distraction bs. jew 'n ass a' never went to the moon. Most sites about it on the web are garbage, this video makes the fraud clear, also fake 'astronauts' caught lying, one punches the video maker in the face. - full version just one hour - jew 'nasa' fraud - apollozero.com

    They used the billions for more weapons. They have over 100 trillion in weapons, chemtrails nano chips, viruses, eatr robots to slaughter then eat you for 'fuel', drones of every type, 'wireless' brain rape. But you won't be around to see it. Only the jews and their chinese slaves.

    thezog.info
    leuchter report at archive.org
    http://jewishcrimenetworkdid911.blogspot.com/
    http://web.archive.org/web/20100825152627/http://jewishfaces.com/banking.html
    see all pages at top
    holodomorinfo.com
    newworldwar.org/chemical.htm

    copy, give links to others. no one will stop the jew destruction and chemtrails but you. make tribes.