Slashdot Mirror


We Finally Have a Computer That Can Survive the Surface of Venus (arstechnica.com)

Planet Venus is one of the most inhospitable places in the solar system. The surface temperature there is 470C (878F). This has been one of the key challenges that has prevented us from deeply exploring Venus. Normal chips can only function until around 250C, but it appears, we will soon have a computer that can withstand Venus' weather. From a report on ArsTechnica: Now, researchers out of NASA's Glenn Research Centre appear to have cracked the other big problem with high-temperature integrated circuits: they've crafted interconnects -- the tiny wires that connect transistors and other integrated components together -- that can also survive the extreme conditions on Venus. The NASA Glenn researchers combined the new interconnects with some SiC transistors to create a ceramic-packaged chip. The chip was then placed into the GEER -- the Glenn Extreme Environments Rig, a machine that can maintain Venus-like temperature and pressure for hundreds of hours at a time. The chip, a simple 3-stage oscillator, kept functioning at a steady 1.26MHz for 521 hours (21.7) days before the GEER had to be shut down.

156 comments

  1. Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "We Finally Have a Computer..."
    "...we may soon have a computer..."

    From the don't-count-your-chickens dept. ?

    1. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) The linked article has pictures of the actual prototype
      2) What you linked is made of polystyrene which melts at 100C
      3) Keep your day job, because you will never make it as a comedian

    2. Re:Confused? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      "I used to do drugs. I still do, but I used to, too." - Mitch Hedberg

      We will soon have a computer that can survive on Venus. We do currently, and we're not planning on destroying it and forgetting how we made it, thus we will soon also have a computer that can survive on venus.

      Unfortunately, it still will not be sufficient to proofread submissions.

      More seriously, the Russians had a viable competing technology 50 years ago. I believe the technology codename was something like "put it in something that is heat resistant to protect it from melting" only in russian.

    3. Re:Confused? by religionofpeas · · Score: 1

      Heat shielding only works for so long.

    4. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes cause they had one lander last a whopping 126 minutes. Heat shielding only helps if the heat is not constant.

    5. Re: Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [In concerned Scottish accent] One more hit and the shields'll be gone, sir!

    6. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From the don't-count-your-chickens dept. ?

      More like don't-count-on-your-editors dept.

    7. Re:Confused? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Based on average refrigerator lifespan, a nuclear powered heat pump and insulation would work for years, thereby allowing a rover to operate on Venus.

    8. Re:Confused? by esperto · · Score: 1

      "We Finally Have a Computer..."

      "...we may soon have a computer..."

      We only have a oscilator for now

      from the it-will-probably-take-a-decade-before-a-proper-computer department

      FTFY

    9. Re:Confused? by gweihir · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... and what they have is not a computer, but a simple, slow oscillator. Alternate facts or fake news? Who knows...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on average refrigerator lifespan, a nuclear powered heat pump and insulation would work for years, thereby allowing a rover to operate on Venus.

      An actual nuclear plant is horribly heavy, even scaled down. I suppose you could do some kind of nuclear batteries, but they generally don't deliver much power. There was an article awhile back about self contained nuclear reactors that could be buried, but you still have to deal with a much hotter thermal environment, and those take chips as well. Remember you typically need some kind of temperature delta to create power, so you go from really hot to extremely hot.

      Air conditioning is only going to move heat from one temp to another. I'm not sure what substance would work with those temperatures, but in theory an air conditioner might be able to be developed that would cut the temp, but then at minimum you have to have a refrigerant compressor that will work well above the ambient temperature. I'm not sure if anything has been developed to deal with those extremes.

      Something to do with the venturi effect might be used to cool a small area slightly assuming you could rely on wind. There is also the potential for something based on a peltier element, but does one exist that will survive those temperatures? Could it be powered by solar? That also is extreme engineering.

      So far, just making a chip survive those temps seems the ideal, since you don't have to have a bunch more power. I suppose you might be able to cool a small device if you sent along a normally solid substance that absorbed heat as it boiled away, and then insulated the heck out of it, but even then, that is limited to the insulation design plus how long the material being boiled away lasts.

      A bit of searching shows that lead melts at 620 degrees Fahrenheit. I suppose that might be the equivalent of ice in that environment.

      More seriously though, I'm guessing even trying to cool something down in that environment would need many air conditioners, each one air conditioning the previous, and each one likely somewhat bigger than the previous and designed for the next step up in temperatures, including different refrigerants, oils, etc. For instance, our best heat pumps probably raise the temp about 70 degrees F. How many 70 degree drops would you need to get down to usable? Maybe it could be done, but I doubt we could afford to deliver it.

      So far the best Idea I see for cooling from all this above is using Lead as the equivalent of ice which would be short term at best, and still require some pretty impressive chips and such.....

    11. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... and what they have is not a computer, but a simple, slow oscillator. Alternate facts or fake news? Who knows...

      And not to mention the test prototype was exposed to the temperature and pressure of Venus's atmosphere, but not the corrosive atmospheric components that an actual lander would have to endure. Still an impressive achievement though.

    12. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, a computer is NOT a 3 stage oscillator!

    13. Re:Confused? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Based on average refrigerator lifespan, a nuclear powered heat pump and insulation would work for years, thereby allowing a rover to operate on Venus.

      It's almost as if you've never heard of the unit of power called "Watts". It allows us to calculate how big of a power supply we'll need for a task.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Confused? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your post is largely correct, with the caveat that with proper insulation, the rate of heat flow to the exterior can be kept surprisingly small. But RTGs are indeed hindered by the external heat that they have to reject waste heat to. Solar power surprisingly actually works on the surface, but at terrible efficiency (if I recall correctly, something like 2.7W/m). And wind indeed has been proposed as a power source. Windspeeds are low, rarely more than a meter per second or so, but due to the high density it's not actually a bad power source. There's even been one wind-propelled rover proposal under investigation (Zephyr).

      Indeed, the whole point of long-term Venus landers is indeed not large amounts of power, but basically surface "weather stations" or "seismic stations" that just sit there using a few watts here and there and transmitting results up to a higher power relay.

      On the other hand, getting things to the surface of Venus is surprisingly easy. Landis once worked out that you could launch a hollow titanium sphere to Venus, have it aerocapture, and land safety on the surface, without any sort of aeroshell, ablation system or parachute whatsoever. Venus has a big "fluffy" atmosphere for slowing things down, and by the bottom the density is so great that terminal velocity can be survivable for well-built probes.

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
    15. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) The linked article has pictures of the actual prototype

      of an extremely simple chip, not a computer.

      2) What you linked is made of polystyrene which melts at 100C

      From the same department as the chocolate teapot then.

      3) Keep your day job, because you will never make it as a comedian

      You, on the other hand, are just a barrel of laughs.

    16. Re:Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IT is because of the MHz figure instead of GHz.

    17. Re: Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I am getting sick and tired of this type of fruitless research. I think they should have to demonstrate a working computer-scale fabrication before any article is written. Otherwise, it is just propaganda.

    18. Re: Confused? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do we care about the weather on Venus? I see no need to go to the surface of venus. I do not see a tremendous amount of scientific potential other than perhaps attempting to confirm various models of the solar system. Venus is completely uninhabitable. The best we might be able to do is use its atmosphere as an energy source, and if we do that we are going to have to send massive amounts of materials there anyways. A more viable option would be to capture solar energy directly right here on Earth.

    19. Re: Confused? by Rei · · Score: 2

      Venus is absolutely not uninhabitable.

      And as for science, knowing whether Venus is the fate of Earth, or how to determine whether an exoplanet would be a second Earth or a second Venus, is a lot bigger of a question than anything Mars can answer. Venus is not only our closest neighbor and almost the same size, but once had oceans like Earth. And her atmosphere appears locked into this vicious cycle, where she's hot because her CO2 isn't stored as carbonates, but she can't form carbonates because she's too hot. And even if you want to dismiss that as an indirect side effect of water loss due to devolatilization due to a lack of a magnetic field (and ignoring the question of "why" the latter is), that's not the only thing Venus is cautionary about. 500 million years ago it appears that the entire planet, or nearly so, was resurfaced by volcanism. Can such a thing happen here? We can't say so because we have no clue why it happened.

      Venus once was another Earth. We want to know what went wrong. It's hard to model the Earth when Venus doesn't work with our models.

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
  2. 900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by cogeek · · Score: 0

    Maybe in the middle of winter, in Alaska. Since every year is the hottest year ever, let's assume an average global temperature of 75 degrees Farenheit. 90 times that would be 6,750 degrees F, not 878F.

    1. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Except 0 is arbitrary in Farenheit... Average Earth temp is 287 kelvin, average Venus temp is 735 kelvin. So really it's only like 2.5x hotter than Earth by any objective measurement. Otherwise you could say a 1 degree F day is infinitely hotter than a 0 degree F day and mathematically on an arbitrary scale, that would be correct.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is nonsensical comparison even with the "correct" math. The author calculates the ratio most likely in Celsius. The correct thermodynamic ratio should be based on temperature scale measured from absolute zero, like Kelvins. The true ratio is more of 2.7 : 1

    3. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can the author at least get partial credit?

    4. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      lolwut, rushing to first post so you didn't read it properly?

      the hard bit is not being cremated by the surface temperature of 470ÂC (878ÂF) or crushed by the atmospheric pressure, which is about 90 times that of Earth, the same as swimming 900 metres under water.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why not Rankine? 0 R is 0 K and it has the more granular step size of Fahrenheit, but without the arbitrary zero-point.

    6. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by cogeek · · Score: 1

      lolwut, rushing to criticize before thinking critically? My post was in reference to the synopsis by the OP not the article.

    7. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Always quote the dumb summaries so you don't look a maroon when they fix 'em.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    8. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because nobody uses Rankine, except when pointing out it exists.

    9. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      It's not arbitrary. It's just based on a frigorific mixture of water, ice and ammonium chloride.

    10. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by edx93 · · Score: 2

      Incorrect. Fahrenheit (like Celsius) is a relative measure, for you to measure 90 times the earth's heat (thermal energy), you'd have to use an absolute measurement: Kelvin. Let's do the math. 75 F (earth's temperature) = 273.15 K; 90 times that is: 273.15* 90 = 24,583K which corresponds to 43,789.73 F. It's hot there, but not THAT hot.

    11. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It used to be the big thing in (American) thermodynamics and rocket science (combustion efficiency calculations).

      Now, not so much.

    12. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by arth1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Except 0 is arbitrary in Farenheit... Average Earth temp is 287 kelvin, average Venus temp is 735 kelvin. So really it's only like 2.5x hotter than Earth by any objective measurement.

      Only if you assume a linear scale. Given how much of the interesting stuff happens near 0 K, and how little difference there is between 10,000,000 K and 100,000,000 K, I would think it would be better if we started treating temperature as a logarithmic scale.

      Or, put another way, the 448 degree difference between 287 K and 735 K is obviously a lot less significant than the 287 degree difference between 0 K and 287 K.

    13. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      I do wonder why the scientific temperature scale isn't logarithmic...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    14. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter at all since we can use decimal representation, or even log representation if we wish.

      Don't go fucking with the fundamental scale, that doesn't make any sense at all.

    15. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by lazlo · · Score: 2

      One of the (smaller) reasons I dropped out of the ChemE degree I was pursuing was because one day in one of my classes, there was a number written on the board. We asked the prof what it was, and his reply was "That's the ideal gas constant, R. I wrote it there because we'll be using it today". We looked at him funny and said "No it's not. We use R all the time, and it's not that". "Well.... yes it is, but this is the value of R in the units atmosphere gallons per lbmol rankine."

      While I appreciate the value of being metrically multilingual, for some reason that just seems horribly *wrong*.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    16. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      I do wonder why the scientific temperature scale isn't logarithmic...

      Because that would make the really fundamental things like the ideal gas law unnecessarily complicated.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    17. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not only the zero that is arbitrary with F but the scale too, which is a fault R shares. 1K is the amount of heat imparted by 1J of energy applied to a cubic cm of water. SI units all talk to each other.

    18. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Rei · · Score: 1

      I just wish we used units that rendered the gas constant unnecessary. I should probably memorize it to more digits than "8,31" so that I don't have to keep looking it up :

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
    19. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When heating a ramekin, measure in Rankine.

    20. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      waaait.

      There's exactly 100K between water boiling and melting point; Kelvin increments the same as Celsius.

      So, 100 Joules will bring 1cm^3 of water from freezing to boiling temperature...

      Joule is kg*m^2/s^2 - 1000cm^3 of water is 1kg. That's the origin of meter unit (redefined later).

      Second is 1/86400 of Earth's synodic day.

      But kilogram definition is arbitrary, "this here cylinder of iridium alloy".

      How the hell do we arrive at 100 times [mass of a certain iridium cylinder] times [side of cube of water the mass of 1000 such cylinders] divided by [1/86400 of Earth's synodic day] squared being the energy to bring water of mass a thousandth of the mass of that cylinder from freezing to boiling?

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    21. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      replying to self. We don't. You confused Joules with calories.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    22. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by syntotic · · Score: 1

      NO wonder it is all CAD, but seldom CAM.

    23. Re:900 is 90 times hotter than Earth? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      There appear to be variants, but I'd not heard of sal ammoniac being in the mix until your post; just ice, water and salt (sodium chloride, "table salt"). It's likely that the materials weren't particularly pure though.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Um... temperature doesn't work that way by under_score · · Score: 2

    The surface temperature there is 470C (878F), approximately 90 times that of Earth.

    Maybe if we were talking about the Kelvin scale, but even then, 90x is a pretty meaningless way of comparing temperatures. Much better to maybe mention that at 470C:

    • 327C Lead
    • 420C Zinc
    • 449C Tellurium

    Read more: http://www.lenntech.com/period...

    1. Re:Um... temperature doesn't work that way by under_score · · Score: 1

      Oops... even with reviewing I somehow missed the connecting words: "Much better to maybe mention that at 470C these elements melt:"

    2. Re:Um... temperature doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no not in Kelvins. Room temperature is 272K. So the surface temperature of Venus temperature is less than 2x that of earth.

    3. Re:Um... temperature doesn't work that way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venus is 735K, perhaps you meant less than 3x.

    4. Re:Um... temperature doesn't work that way by fisted · · Score: 1

      Room temperature is 272K.

      At least you don't need a fridge...nor a freezer, for that matter.

    5. Re:Um... temperature doesn't work that way by under_score · · Score: 1

      I just meant that using multiples to compare _any_ temperatures is meaningless in C. If you want to do temperature multiples, K is better, and, of course, you're correct that Venus isn't 90x Earth in K either.

    6. Re:Um... temperature doesn't work that way by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      The current version of TFA says that the surface pressure of Venus is about 90x that of Earth, which is correct. You must have gotten an earlier, incorrect version.

  4. Not 90 times Earth temp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On absolute scale, Kelvin, it is closer to 2 1/2 times.

  5. There once was a computer on Venus that had a... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    heat stroke. What else? ;)

  6. Good to see equal sex computing... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since supposedly men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, it's good to see they've finally created a computer that can survive women.

    / sorry, I'm not really sexist

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    1. Re:Good to see equal sex computing... by turkeydance · · Score: 1

      you are right. Zsa Zsa was from Venus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    2. Re:Good to see equal sex computing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious! You should quit your job and become an amateur comedian from 1993! Unabomber? More like UnaBUMMER, amirite?

    3. Re:Good to see equal sex computing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      / sorry, I'm not really sexist

      According to some people you are:
      https://www.theodysseyonline.c...

    4. Re:Good to see equal sex computing... by Rei · · Score: 1

      I remember as a kid watching reruns of Green Acres on Nick at Night. They had an ad - which my father had to explain to me - which showed the lead actress, with the voiceover: "This is Eva Gabor. Not Zsa Zsa. Eva won't hurt you."

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
  7. TFA talks about atmospheric pressure being 90 time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90 times higher, not temperature

  8. Great editing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    90 times that of earth? If they're talking temperature, on the C and F scales it's roughly 10 times, and the K scale it's like 4 times. Neither of those are anywhere near 90. Of course the article mentions atmosphere, which somehow got clipped out of the summary.

  9. Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Informative

    How, as an editor for a tech site, do you hire someone who can't even recognize a total goof in the summary intro? The PRESSURE at the surface of Venus is 90x that of earth.

    I'd understand if you had one or two editors posting hundreds of stories a day - one might slip through. But you're barely posting one story an hour to the front page. How do you fuck that up?

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure it's mostly automated. I seriously doubt that editors are sitting around the table, manually skimming thousands of submissions.

      More likely, they're sitting at Starbucks talking about how their LGBT-BBQ-EIEIO rights are being trampled on... their phone goes BEEP BEEP after picking an article with the requisite number of bullshit bingo buzzwords, they click a button on some app, and the next Musk / AI / socialism story gets posted. No actual reading involved.

    2. Re:Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      They fired all the editors. There's literally one editor now.

    3. Re:Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What were the other editors doing all day? Implementing beta?

    4. Re: Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of us here could probably write a script that does a better automated editing job than the new /. Editor(s).

    5. Re:Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am starting to wonder whether people actually read things, or fully comprehend what they read. Sometimes I send e-mails, and the reply exhibits ignorance of entire (two-sentence) paragraphs, even when those paragraphs contain simple information, such as a brief summary of the content of an attachment.

      One way to fail to recognize a goof in a summary is to fail to read that summary carefully (or at all).

    6. Re:Hi, I was a scientist at Buzzfeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Mmmh....

  10. Uhmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Title: "We Finally Have a Computer That Can Survive the Surface of Venus"
    Content: "we may soon have a computer that can withstand Venus' weather"

    1. Re:Uhmmm... by Punko · · Score: 2

      Except, you're not surviving Venus's weather (btw Venus' would be the possessive for multiple Venu) you're only surviving the temp and pressure. The weather included sulphuric acid rain and other horrible environmental challenges. the temp and pressure are just two of the challenges.

      --
      If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
    2. Re:Uhmmm... by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Maybe, 'except, you're not surviving Venereal weather?'

      I seem to recall that we only use 'Venusian' because 'Venereal' was already taken by the medical community.....

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  11. Hopefully it does math better there... by MiniMike · · Score: 2

    The surface temperature there is 470C (878F), approximately 90 times that of Earth.

    I don't even want to know...

    So Google says the average temperature on Earth is 16 C, or 289.3 K. 90x that is about 26,000 K.

    The article (yes, I looked at it) actually says the pressure is about 90 times that on Earth.

    1. Re:Hopefully it does math better there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a math error but an editing or factual error. I can't see any sequence of reasonable expressions to turn any of those Earth numbers into the cited Venutian temperature.

  12. Yawn by Spy+Handler · · Score: 1

    call me when you build a computer that can survive the interior of Uranus

    1. Re:Yawn by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2
      For those curious:

      Uranus's core density is around 9 g/cm3, with a pressure in the centre of 8 million bars (800 GPa) and a temperature of about 5000 K.

      (And yes, I get the obvious joke, lest ye "whoosh" me...)

    2. Re:Yawn by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      Hah. Because it sounds like the word for butthole!

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    3. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      call me when you build a computer that can survive the interior of Uranus

      Wouldn't we just need to duplicate the physical properties of your penis?

      Ha. In Soviet Russia, gay sex jokes zing YOU.

    4. Re:Yawn by Rei · · Score: 2

      My problem with the name Uranus isn't that stupid, overused joke - it's the fact that it's the only planet named after a Greek, not Roman, god. It should have been Caelus.

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
    5. Re:Yawn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the joke would be, "call me when you build a computer that can survive the interior of Caelus". And that just doesn't sound right or funny at all!

      Nope. That would be a big bag of Nope right there. Funny trumps consistency, at least in planet names.

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

      I do not see the problem, all we need is to encase it and let it perform while the case lasts, then whatever to send a signal just before final crash. Think of a tiny thing inside a huge very dense big thing. Do not see what would it be useful for, but there a few possibilities there if you can control the destruction of the case and make the thing inside report about it. What about a chemical sensor detecting speed at which the case material disintegrates? I am not sure, but we should not get worried about nukes in Uranus! Should we? Then we would have such power and the thing does not have to be rocket capsule size either, etc. What about logic enough to trigger nukes at intervals while sinking to provide some signal differences to measure, etc? More than this idea and you already need paper and pencil...

  13. Not just this by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    First, a computer is a whole lot more than just a chip. How about boards, wire runs, resisters, transistors? But the atmosphere of Venus contains massive amounts of toxic gasses. If we have a computer chip that operates at high temperatures, what is it made of and how quickly does it break down inside the atmosphere of Venus?

    So not only don't we have a computer that works on Venus, we don't have chips that work on Venus. TFA says that they may have a chip that operates at high temperatures but since it has not quite been invented yet we can't test the viability of said chip in Venus' atmosphere. Not only am I cynical, but I'm really tired of the chronic hyperbole in seemingly everything.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Not just this by fisted · · Score: 1

      First, a computer is a whole lot more than just a chip.

      No, it really isn't, see SoCs. I doubt the external is a problem, the semiconductor interconnnects are.

      But the atmosphere of Venus contains massive amounts of toxic gasses. If we have a computer chip that operates at high temperatures, what is it made of and how quickly does it break down inside the atmosphere of Venus?

      Chips are never, not even on earth, exposed to the atmosphere. See also TFS, look out for where it says "ceramic-packaged".

      So not only don't we have a computer that works on Venus, we don't have chips that work on Venus. TFA says that they may have a chip that operates at high temperatures but since it has not quite been invented yet we can't test the viability of said chip in Venus' atmosphere.

      Where does TFA say that? What about the part where they allegedly tested an actual chip for a few weeks in venus-like temperatures and pressures?

    2. Re:Not just this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like they're using ceramic packages/substrates with nickel alloy wires. Ceramics can be incredibly chemically resistant, and nickel alloys, like Hastelloy N, are used in molten salt nuclear reactors, which are very challenging environments due to neutron bombardment, high temperature, and direct contact with highly corrosive chemicals.

      I think they just solved the very hardest parts of this problem: semiconductor and interconnect materials that function at such high temps. Proper packaging, insulation, connectors, and containment vessels can handle the chemicals in the atmosphere.

    3. Re:Not just this by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, you are technically correct in the first part, but a computer is much more than a chip and a power supply. Cool in my opinion that they can get them to run on the Moon and Mars, but Venus adds quite a few new challenges other than heat and pressure. Namely, the corrosive gasses under the same heat and pressure.

      Your second part is correct for computers that are space worthy, but not true for computers on earth. Most chips in Earth's atmosphere are exposed to the atmosphere. Legs of a chip are not coming out of an environment proof seal, and they are not air proof. You are half right, and my generalization for a space worthy computer was wrong.

      Your last part is answered with: "The chip, a simple 3-stage oscillator, kept functioning at a steady 1.26MHz for 521 hours (21.7) days before the GEER had to be shut down." So they don't have a functional computer, but they have interconnects that could handle heat from a very slow oscillator. A computer is a whole lot more components, with a whole lot more IO, generating a whole heat.

      Don't misunderstand, I think the goal is noble. I'd love to have some atmospheric data coming from Venus, information on surface, weather, etc.. like we do on Mars. I just disagree with using Hyperbole to sell the concept.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:Not just this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chips are never, not even on earth, exposed to the atmosphere. See also TFS, look out for where it says "ceramic-packaged".

      You've never bonded a die, have you? I have built circuits in which some of the chips are bare dies wedge bonded with fine gold wire for very high frequency.

      Above 10GHz, many semiconductor manufacturers will sell you bare dies (like Hittite, now a subsidiary of Analog Devices), and there are also flip chip bare dies (like GaN power transistors from Effiicient Power Conversion Co., RF switches working up to 60GHz from Peregrine Semi).

      The last processing step of these chips is typically adding a passivation layer to make them more robust when manipulated, but they still are bare dies, and sometimes quite fragile (air bridges).

      By the way, GaN components also withstand very well high temperatures (perhaps less so than SiC, I don't know), but chips can operate at temperatures higher than the melting point of typical lead-free solder.

    5. Re:Not just this by fisted · · Score: 1

      You've never bonded a die, have you?

      No, I haven't.

      So even if there are bare dies (which aren't really bare after the 'passivation layer'), that's not the usual case. If for some reason this is required at 10GHz (which I doubt), then fair enough. The chip TFA talks about oscillates four orders of magnitude slower, and something makes me believe they won't go for bare-die.

    6. Re:Not just this by Rei · · Score: 2

      Your standard Venera-style probe consists of the following layers:

      1) Outer spherical steel shell
      2) Insulation
      3) Phase-change material as a constant-temperature heat heat sink
      4) Everything that you don't want hot, compressed, or exposed to corrosive chemicals.

      The only thing that's hard to keep from happening is the "hot" part, because eventually your phase change material reaches its limits and the temperature starts to rise.

      Don't misunderstand, I think the goal is noble. I'd love to have some atmospheric data coming from Venus, information on surface, weather, etc.

      I assume you mean "more data". We've already had the Venera probes, the Pioneer probes, and the Vega probes (including PTFE superpressure balloons - the only airborne vehicles on another world to date).

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
    7. Re:Not just this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the graph again, it was not a steady 1.26MHz, that was the average during its run-time. The thing ticked slower over time as whatever other un-described effects kicked in. Its a friggn brilliant PoC, though as seen, anything we send with this tech could fall apart after a few months.

    8. Re:Not just this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Venus adds quite a few new challenges other than heat and pressure. Namely, the corrosive gasses under the same heat and pressure.

      The supplementary material for the scientific article linked in the news article explains that they did testing with the corrosive gases of Venus' atmosphere at the surface temperature and pressure measured on Venus:
      ftp://ftp.aip.org/epaps/aip_advances/E-AAIDBI-6-068612/GEER2SupplementaryAIP.pdf

      Legs of a chip are not coming out of an environment proof seal, and they are not air proof.

      Unless you have a hermetically sealed package. Several are listed in the PDF below:
      http://www.ti.com/lit/an/snoa280/snoa280.pdf

      From the PDF:
      By design, a hermetic seal prevents gases and liquids from entering the package cavity where the die is mounted. These packages ... are extensively used in military/aerospace and commercial applications.

      So they don't have a functional computer, but they have interconnects that could handle heat from a very slow oscillator. A computer is a whole lot more components, with a whole lot more IO, generating a whole heat.

      Heat, as such, is almost irrelevant in this situation. Temperature is the big deal, as per the article. Heat, measured in watts, causes a rise in die temperature above ambient that depends on the thermal dissipation characteristics of the chip package and heatsink. This thermal dissipation characteristic is measured in degrees celsius rise above ambient temperature per watt of heat.

      For example, I have a switching converter (LT3467AIS6) in a SOT23-6 package with a maximum junction (Silicon die) temperature of 125 deg. celsius and a thermal dissipation characteristic of 102 deg. celsius rise in junction temperature above ambient per watt of heat. Its integrated switch has a saturation voltage of 0.33V, and I'm running it at an RMS current of 0.54A, resulting in 0.33V * 0.54A = 0.1782W of heat and consequent 0.1782W * 102 deg. C / W = 18.2 deg. celsius rise in junction temperature above ambient. I can run the chip up to an ambient temperature of 125 deg. celsius - 18.2 deg. celsius = 106.8 deg. celsius.

      My chip would not function at the ambient temperature of 470 deg. celsius on Venus, but notice that the heat generated in the junction (or die) is entirely irrelevant in this situation, because it only causes a rise above the ambient temperature, and the ambient temperature would cause the chip to fail all by itself. If the same chip were made out of Silicon Carbide and had the same thermal dissipation characteristic, it would be fine at 470 deg. celsius ambient, as long as it could work at 488.2 deg. celsius or higher. Working at the ambient temperature is the hard part, and as long as you have enough headroom, you're good. The journal article linked from the news article (http://aip.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/1.4973429) notes that the same group has tested these chips at 500 deg. celsius in earth atmosphere, so an SiC version of my chip would be fine at 470 deg. C, all other things being equal. On top of that, better heatsink design lowers the thermal dissipation characteristic -- my chip also comes in a 3x2mm DFN package with 80 deg. celsius per watt thermal dissipation characteristic (lower than the 102 deg. C / W of the SOT23-6 package) due to an exposed thermal pad that is bonded to the die. NASA would do a much better job than that, if needed, as they are making custom stuff and have a larger budget than I do.

    9. Re:Not just this by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      But the atmosphere of Venus contains massive amounts of toxic gasses.

      It's not as simple as that. Near the surface, the atmosphere is CO2 (96.5%) and N2 (3.5%) with a trace of SO2. Interestingly, that''s nearly the same absolute amount of N2 as in the Earth's atmosphere. It would kill you even if you reduced the temperature to something survivable, but it wouldn't either dissolve you or kill people trying to autopsy your corpse. Higher up are the cloud layers which we can see, which contain water droplets, and the SO2 has dissolved in the water to make it acidic. But although those clouds are probably not something you'd want to wash your cock with, that doesn't make them terribly toxic themselves. And even if the clouds are made of "droplets of sulphuric acid", that still wouldn't, of itself, make it a lethal place. When planes or gliders or parachutists fly through clouds on Earth, do the passengers and crew drown? No, because the volume density of the liquids in the clouds is low.

      The Wikipedia article mentions other compounds such as ferric chloride. Even at fairly low concentrations, they'd be more of a problem because they'd form conductive solutions on exposed conductors, and that is not good for any electronics. But I've got plenty of electronics that can handle being bathed in such solutions - it's various elements of my SCUBA equipment. I probably wouldn't want to wash my cock with a dilute acidic mix of ferric chloride and sulphuric acid either, but I have assessed using such mixes for laboratory work in preference to other mixtures and found the hazards to be manageable (but still not desirable, from a risk-management PoV). Normally I have to deal with hazards of fire, explosion and drowning in my work, but I have to deal with chemical hazards too, and I don't see that sort of mix as being terrifying, just requiring eye protection and latex gloves. Not even double-gloving - which is something we do do on a regular basis.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    10. Re:Not just this by s.petry · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean "more data". We've already had the Venera probes, the Pioneer probes, and the Vega probes (including PTFE superpressure balloons - the only airborne vehicles on another world to date).

      Those did not provide, nor could they provide, any surface data. Stop selectively reading posts and we could have a better conversation.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

  14. Excited by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Computers finally agreeable with Venus? Interest in computers shall not be an impediment on interacting with Venus, like it used to be!

  15. Earth 287 kelvin, Venus 735 kelvin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How is Venus 90x hotter than Earth?

    Venus is less than 3x as hot as Earth. What a ludicrous summary. How did that pass the laugh test?

  16. Venus is about 2.5 times as hot as Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we take the average Earth temperature to be 15 C, converting to Kelvin gives us 288.15. The average Venus temperature of 470 C becomes 743.15 k.
    743.15 k / 288.15 k = 2.579

    So, it would be fair to say that the surface temperature of Venus is approximately 2.5 times that of Earth.

  17. And air pressure of about 10 Libraries of Congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heat is one thing, but there's also a very acid and thick atmosphere to account for. I guess the computer needs to withstand the weight of at least 10 (random guess) libraries of congress stacked on top of it.

  18. Pressure is about 90 times that of Earth by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The statement was "the hard bit is not being cremated by the surface temperature of 470C (878F) or crushed by the atmospheric pressure, which is about 90 times that of Earth, the same as swimming 900 metres under water".

    It's the atmospheric pressure, not the temperature, that is about 90 times that of Earth

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Pressure is about 90 times that of Earth by danbert8 · · Score: 2

      Maybe it was in the original article, and now the "90 times" has been removed from the summary... That's Slashdot for you. Shitty editing.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    2. Re:Pressure is about 90 times that of Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have often wondered why they need to keep things from "getting crushed" by the atmosphere. Why don't they build it so the pressure can equalize? How about using those space shuttle tiles to dissipate heat?

    3. Re: Pressure is about 90 times that of Earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Victory Unintentional, Isaac Asimov, 1942.

  19. I think we had this for a while by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's called
    1) Fluidics
    2) Thermionic integrated micromodules

    1. Re:I think we had this for a while by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Fluidics might be difficult. It's slow, and if you want liquid state you'd want to choose something liquid both at the conditions in space near Venus and at near 500 C on the surface. Vapor state is the other possibility - how much pneumatic logic is used, practically speaking?

      My first thought was, as you suggested, vacuum tube technology. Ceramics, tungsten and most other common metals are solid at 500 C, although aluminum is weak that high. With the proper material choice, a coated cathode wouldn't even need a heater above 450 C.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  20. I bet the editors fucked up on purpose by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the editors fucked up on purpose just so that we'd all start making posts about how the 90x temp is wrong. Mission accomplished.

  21. And Samsung will supply the batteries by billrp · · Score: 5, Funny

    That extreme pressure should keep them from exploding

    1. Re:And Samsung will supply the batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Must ...Expand ...Must ...Evolve to get off this rock.

      Ten thousand years later we welcome our exploding battery acid spitting overlords.

  22. Is it really that hard? by swb · · Score: 2

    Can't they just encase the thing in some kind of packaging with its own cooling system? Or is it a case of whatever it takes to keep it running on Venus is too fucking big to send to Venus?

    1. Re:Is it really that hard? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      designing a cooling device that works at the temperature (ie the radiating element working at 735K ) is probably as hard as designing electronics... and a lot heavier.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Is it really that hard? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cooling systems radiate heat to somewhere else. Where can a machine on Venus radiate heat? It's 800 degrees everywhere. Your refrigerator has cooling vents on the back. Your air conditioner blows hot air outside. Your heat pump has cooling vents outside. On Venus outside is 800 degrees.

    3. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A very, very high chimney. Perhaps a circulating 'frozen space to planet surface' chimney?

    4. Re:Is it really that hard? by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      A refrigerator on earth is colder inside than outside. This is because of a device called a heat pump, it moves heat from inside he box to outside the box. Given the atmosphere of Venus is denser than that of Earth we can assume that venting heat to the atmosphere will work there, meaning a heat pump has a working medium to move the heat to.

    5. Re:Is it really that hard? by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the radiators are warmer than the air around it. On Venus, you would have to warm the radiators to over 800 degrees to radiate heat.

    6. Re:Is it really that hard? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      True, but now you have to design motors and pumps that work reliably at 500 C, and choose an appropriate working fluid. Given the inefficiency of Peltier devices, Peltier is not a viable option.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    7. Re:Is it really that hard? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Can't they just encase the thing in some kind of packaging with its own cooling system? Or is it a case of whatever it takes to keep it running on Venus is too fucking big to send to Venus?

      Well in order to make some bits of the system cooler than the environment it has to make other bits hotter so it'll radiate away, which is done by forcing the refrigerant to go through a phase change. There aren't exactly many refrigerants that'll be useful at those temperatures and you'd also need a compressor that can operate at 500+ C and the whole process will be very power intensive. It'll be nothing like the refrigerator you have, it'll be more like tryng to keep room temperature inside an egg submerged in boiling water, only much worse. Basically you're swapping a hard problem for an even harder one, which is likely to fail pretty quick unless you also have a huge power source. It is much better if we can make a computer that can work under the conditions that exist.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    8. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Your refrigerator's heat pump is a phase-change coolant system (i.e. enormous coefficient of performance), working against a small temperature difference (perhaps 20K), with a small heat flux (A few watts of heat seeping in). These performance specs are pretty much trivial to meet, which is why modern fridges are pretty much sealed, lifetime-performance units. The reason why is that the amount of work a heat pump has to do is proportional to the SQUARE of the temperature difference: The amount of heat leaking in, and the amount of work needed to expel a given amount of heat, are both proportional to delta-T. Keeping a well-insulated box 20*c cooler than its surroundings is easy. Really easy.

      INITIATE SIMPLE BACK-OF-ENVELOPE ENGINEERING PLAUSIBILITY ANALYSIS

      Supposing we want to keep the inside of a Venus probe down to a mere... 100*C? Now we have a 330 degree temperature difference. That's 17x the temperature difference in your coldbox: The venus probe's fridge will have 275 TIMES the work to do per unit area & insulation. Shit.

      Suppose the probe is a silvered ball 2 meters in diameter. Let's plug in... 30mW/m-K and give it a 250mm thick aerogel insulator all around its inside surface. That's roughly 500W of heat leaking in from a 430C ambient, and we haven't put ANYTHING through the aerogel (like the supports for the probe's internal goodies...) which will send that through the roof.

      The radiator itself is a fairly simple matter - only 800cm^2 of outward facing blackbody surface, heated to 500C, will dump our waste heat into a 430C ambient. I don't know nearly enough about refrigeration technology to say what a mechanical refrigerator capable of pushing 500W of heat up a 400* difference will look like... My first google search brought up a unit capable of dumping 500W in the vicinity of room temp across probably a 20C difference (HRU-1000) which fills .012 cubic meters. Naively scale it to do 270x the work, that's eating 3.2 cubic meters of probe volume in order to keep the inside down to a blazing 100*C. Our 2-meter-diameter probe, with 250mm of aerogel shell, only has 1.7 cubic meters of internal volume.

      We're out of space twice over and we have no atomic power supply, no scientific instruments, no computer, no radio to talk back to earth... Also I don't think the world's remaining Pu-238 stockpile can build a themionic generator capable of powering that fridge, but that's a "minor technical detail."

      Heat leakage scales as area, volume scales as volume, so the situation gets better for bigger probes. Fat chance of that, seeing as the last Saturn V is sitting on its side in pieces... There's no way a usefully chilled Venus surface probe happens in the realistic near future.

    9. Re:Is it really that hard? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Difficult because the hot side temperature needs to be very hot, but not crazy. The ability to use standard silicon would vastly reduce the circuit size, and maybe power consumption.

      If pumps and motors can work at Venusian temperatures, then a cooler would not be all that difficult. Motors are probably needed for the lander to do useful stuff anyway.

      A TEC cooler would be better, but I'm not aware of any thermometric materials that can work at that temperature. There might be a trick using a ferromagnetic material with the right Curie temperature.

      The high temperature semiconductors are also a reasonable approach and a nice technology for other applications as well.

    10. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "A TEC cooler would be better, but I'm not aware of any thermometric materials that can work at that temperature. "

      Many thermionics are most efficient in that temperature range. The lack of a cold sink makes their use a challenge.

    11. Re:Is it really that hard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silicon is "intrinsic" at this temperature - the intentional p- and n-type doping densities are overtaken by "intrinsic" carriers - those shaken loose from the crystal lattice by thermal activation. Silicon is not a semiconductor at these temperatures - it is a semi-metal.

    12. Re:Is it really that hard? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Naively scale it to do 270x the work, that's eating 3.2 cubic meters of probe volume in order to keep the inside down to a blazing 100*C. Our 2-meter-diameter probe, with 250mm of aerogel shell, only has 1.7 cubic meters of internal volume.

      Uh, the radiator is bolted to the outside of the sphere. The components on the inside are considerably smaller than the radiator on the outside. Think CPU water cooling rig. The water block is quite small in volume compared to the radiator.

      You neglected the really useful calculation: the Carnot efficiency. Let's see if there's a little more room on the back of the envelope.

      Carnot efficiency is given by: (TH-TC)/TH*100% so for Venus at 470K and room temperature at 298K, we get an efficiency of 36%. So in order to reject, say, 600 watts of heat from the interior of the probe (your 500W of ambient leakage plus 100W of equipment), our refrigerator is going to suck up somewhere north of 1.7kW of power. (It will be more, because Carnot efficiency is the theoretical perfect efficiency, which can't actually be built.) How close we can get to the ideal depends quite heavily on the properties of the working fluid and the pressures inside the system. Outrageous by space probe standards, but not actually completely bonkers.

      Using the same General Purpose Heat Source modules used in the Curiosity rover, we'll need 111 modules, totaling 67kg of plutonium-238. NASA has 35kg left for civil use (and an unspecified amount earmarked for military use (classified)). Houston, we have a problem...

      Running the numbers in a reverse Rankine Cycle to calculate a more practical efficiency is left as an exercise for the reader.

  23. Mainstream computing applications by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    The hotter something is relative to its environment the faster the heat moves away. I hope this science can be used to make mainstream desktop chips that can safely operate at much higher temperatures for quieter cooling and better performance.

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:Mainstream computing applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably not. Designing a chip that can withstand those temperatures is probably so expensive, that it only makes sense when shipping it to another planet and you end up saving the shipping costs of a giant cooling system.

  24. Big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real story here is that we have a chip composition that won't give out even under the most aggressive of overclocking profiles.

  25. But can it survive Fukushima? by Unreal+One · · Score: 2

    I just read that the clean-up robots at Fukushima can't withstand the radiation of the site. I wonder if this sort of improvement could be adapted to improve the clean-up hardware. Is temperature and radiation it the same kind of 'heat'?

    1. Re: But can it survive Fukushima? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a different problem.

    2. Re:But can it survive Fukushima? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      No. Radiation causes induced voltages in the circuitry at low levels and molecular changes that destroy semiconductors at very high levels, where heat causes the circuitry to melt. You can reduce radiation sensitivity by increasing the operating voltage of the circuit, thereby reducing the relative magnitude of the induced voltages.

    3. Re:But can it survive Fukushima? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Silicon Carbide has a bandgap considerably higher than silicon. Other things being equal, that makes it more resistant to radiation-induced carriers.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re:But can it survive Fukushima? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Silicon Carbide has a bandgap considerably higher than silicon. Other things being equal, that makes it more resistant to radiation-induced carriers.".

      Yes, but only for the small fraction of electron radiation lower in energy than the band gap of SiC. Most electron radiation is high enough energy to induce carriers in either material. More massive particle radiation damage is another concern. Particle
      radiation damage is minimized by higher atomic number atoms in the crystal lattice. Even though SiC is much 'harder' to degradation than silicon in most arenas, SiC has a lower composite atomic mass than Si, so it is more susceptible to high energy particle bombardment than silicon.

  26. Furlongs per Fortnight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This was an engineering joke in the 1960's, but technology has advanced to the point where we need such complex units to make sure our Mars probes actually land on Mars, although sometimes too hard.

  27. Not quite by SkOink · · Score: 3, Informative

    To be clear, we don't have a computer that can survive on Venus, or anything near that. What the research team made is a ring-buffer, which is a collection of maybe 20-30 transistors arranged in a big circle (with one inverter).

    That's a very far cry from even an Intel 8080, which is approximately 4500 transistors. And that's without any RAM, Flash, or anything else. This is an impressive milestone to be sure, but it's nowhere near an Arduino (let alone a full computer).

    --
    ---- I'll take you in a Hunt deathmatch any day.
    1. Re: Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An abacus is a computer.

    2. Re: Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fantastic, let's install the abacus onto a rover craft and drop that into Venus.

    3. Re: Not quite by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      According to wikipedia, A computer is a device that can be instructed to carry out an arbitrary set of arithmetic or logical operations automatically.

      . By that definition, an abacus doesn't qualify.

      More traditionally,
      Yo mama
      is a computer.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    4. Re: Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the modern sense that a computer is a machine which modifies its own state according to its own instructions, no it isn't.

      It's a state machine which is modified by a computer (a person).

    5. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do such these kinds of simple structures to test a new process or production line.

    6. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What the research team made is a ring-buffer, which is a collection of maybe 20-30 transistors arranged in a big circle (with one inverter).

      That's a very far cry from even an Intel 8080"

      Doesn't matter. The only difference is obtaining equivalent yield over the area of an 8080 die. Even at native defect densities of state-of-the-art SiC, yielding an equivalent number of 8080 transistors comes down largely to dust and mask defects - real problems in the mid-1970s - insignificant problems for the dimensions of 8080 process today. That ring buffer could be an 8080 with a new mask set. Why not prove it already? Cost. The researchers wisely chose a demonstration vehicle that was cheap enough to attract funding - they didn't have to ask for (and get rejected for) the level of funding to answer some potential internet critic who would dump on their research because they did not choose to make an 8080. These are the smart guys - otherwise you wouldn't have read of them to criticize.

    7. Re:Not quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And as for program storage and memory space, they could probably get by with mask ROM and static RAM.

  28. Some day ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... we will have phones that can stand up to water. I've heard of a few planets that have water on their surface. This could be a handy feature.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  29. Not the only problem. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    NASA engineer: "Our grand heat-tolerant computer is reporting back the latest findings from the probe ... it confirms that all the scientific instruments are fried and not returning data."

  30. Maybe they can build a PDP-11 this way by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    The technology sounds like they they may be able to build some kind of ancient computer system to run a probe. No way it will run Linux.

  31. Dinosaurs by roesti · · Score: 1

    Sure, they'll survive the weather, but won't they just get eaten by dinosaurs? :)

    1. Re:Dinosaurs by Rei · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes - the 20th century was filled with no shortage of disappointments concerning our planetary neighbors.

      The unfortunate thing about Venus is, if its atmosphere had stopped at around the height that is today 54-55km, nobody would be talking about Mars as a human habitation destination. Indeed, one proposal for terraforming Venus is to build a whole new surface at that height and just call it good enough ;)

      --
      I spent the evening flickering into your darkness.
  32. Not the first. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 3, Funny

    470C? Oh please, my AMD chip runs at least twice as hot as that. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  33. Use case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send it to Fukushima for robots.

  34. It's a FRAUD to make money for greedy scientists! by bussdriver · · Score: 0

    With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that the greenhouse gas heated Venus is the second greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?

    This is a conspiracy to waste money inventing expensive devices to explore a hot planet when it is in fact a freezing cold planet as evidenced by the huge amount of reflected solar radiation it can not be as hot as these "so called scientists" claim it is.

    Just go to Fox News and find out for yourself!

  35. For it to be obvious by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    For it to be obvious, you first have to know the significance. So what makes it significant to you?

    1. Re:For it to be obvious by arth1 · · Score: 2

      For it to be obvious, you first have to know the significance. So what makes it significant to you?

      Atoms moving vs not moving is more significant than atoms moving vs moving slightly faster.

      Or, to put it another way, the difference between a plane doing 287 km/h and one doing 735 km/h is obviously less than the difference between a plane doing 287 km/h and a hill.

    2. Re:For it to be obvious by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Not if you are trying to get outside of a blast radius, it isn't!

  36. Chips have legs? by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    The pins coming out of a chip package get called legs sometimes, but the package is not the chip.

  37. Re:My 8th grade teacher Mr. Burgess... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    My 8th grade teacher Mr. Burgess said that both an apostrophe after the s and an additional 's are correct alternatives for words ending in s, and given his name he would have some incentive on being sure about this.

  38. Moronic Hype by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, one possible component can survive that temperature. Memory? Resistors? Capacitors? Inductors? PCBs? Batteries? Just one more of today's overblown press releases. Be specific, not glorifying. Be scientific, for god's sake.

  39. F/. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've made several comments stemming from my expertise in this field. The morons who vet /. articles decided their ingnorance trumped by scientific training. I'm through with this site. It's useful time is over. I don't even care enough to log in with my "super-cool' early numerical identification. Should that matter?

  40. In soviet russia, venetian diamonds are forever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Venus surface exploration is traditionally the domain of soviet russians. Unsuprisingly, their landers used alcohol (vodka) based cooling to keep hybrid An/Di electronics working for a maximum of 95-100 minutes on-site, since the booze evaporated rather quickly at such lead-melting temparatures.

    In search of a long-term, fully digital solution, they began developing diamond-based semiconductors, which are theoretically operable up to 900 deg Celsius and rather tolerant of ionizing radiation. (The project was also meant for controlling advanced nuclear and space-based weaponry, not just Venus probes.)

    The USSR went bankrupt and collapsed however, shortly after finding out how to make sizeable artificial diamonds for the purpose. In the Yeltsin era, a ret. USAF colonel bought the russian diamond-baking factory and transported it to California, where the machines are being used to "culture" diamonds, which are of yellowish color due to unavoidable, residual metal doping.

    (The only reason Mossad didn't blow the site up is that natural yellow diamonds are very rare, very small, mostly tiny and seldom free of impurity, thus there was little market interest in them previously. The emergence of larger and purer color artificial yellow diamonds actually started a kind of snobbery, where elites are now willing to pay top dollars for a dwarf yellow gemstone that can boast of a "natural" pedigree, thus the hebrew also profit. Meanwhile the synthetic yellow gems are all laser-engraved in factory to say "cultured".)

    As far as publicly known, diamond-based semiconductors haven't gotten much progress ever since. Some Silicon Valley companies are trying to grow traditional, "dishplate sized" wafers out of diamond, using vacuum or vapor based depositing, but the process takes decades to yield results.

  41. That's nothing by cobester · · Score: 0

    How about one that can survive on the surface of Uranus!

  42. Soviet Pyrotechnics by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

    Reading the article about the Soviet experience with Venus there seemed a pretty heavy reliance on "Pyrotechnic charges"...

    Soviet Project Manager: "Vere having a problem with abc operating under extreme pressure..."
    Soviet Engineer "Have we blown it up yet? Ve could try blowing it up first..."

    Also kinda surprised that things like pyrotechnic charges wouldn't accidentally go off under heat/pressure/corrosion.

  43. Thats nice, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now make one that will survive in Uranus... atmosphere. (on spoils the joke!)

  44. "The surface temperature there is 470C (878F)" by Fromage10x · · Score: 1

    Cooler by the lake.

  45. whoosh! guess that went over heads by bussdriver · · Score: 1

    Venus and planetary science have a historical role in global warming. I thought I'd quote some big "skeptics" and swap out earth for venus to make a satirical point. You need not know the history to get the point.

    Moderators must have taken it seriously... guess I have to make it funny or something.