That's extremely unlikely as the batteries themselves will freeze, with the temperatures dropping below -150. The damage done by the freeze will most likely destroy them.
They probably could reverse engineer it and write newer code. The manufacturer might offer software for a newer version of Windows or they might not. The manufacturer might have discontinued that model instrument and the only upgrade path is to buy a new instrument.
As to portable code... It depends on what they're doing. As a technician, I've worked at a nuclear physics research facility and I can tell you from experience that we generally had the source; but, it was a mix of Fortran, C, Java, LabView, LabWindows, TCL/TK, etc. Whatever was appropriate at the time. Porting everything to Java or.NET would be prohibitive, taking too much time, cost too much money. There's a performance penalty as well.
Finally, these are not as portable as you might think. Over a period of 10 to 15 years, they're moving targets -- Java in 1998 is not the same as Java in 2008..NET CLR v1.1 is not the same as.NET CLR v3.5. Not to mention, the hardware specific libraries will change as the architecture changes.
By the way, when that 486 fails, the hard part will be finding another copy of OS/2, not replacing the computer.
Google is your friend. These are industrial computers, not your typical desktop machine. You can build out from a chassis, selecting the appropriate backplane and processor card:
If you're a hobbyist looking to play with ISA bus or old cards, here's a link to a company which makes an ISA to USB adapter. I found these guys on the web; but, to be honest I've never tried their stuff:
Frankly the Shuttle was an attempt to jump from the Wright Flyer to a 707. We really needed to build a Ford Trimotor and a DC-3 first.
apt summary. Now that we have the Shuttle experience, however, can we skip the Trimotor and go for the DC-3. They were pretty damn reliable and some are still in use today...
Actually, his situation is not that uncommon. Proprietary hardware OFTEN comes with proprietary software; and, the company will most certainly not give you the specs or source code for their proprietary technology. Given that the equipment is 15 years old, it is probable that the instrument has long exceeded both its design life and its support life; ie. the company which manufactured it no longers supports that product.
Even after the product is no longer supported, it is often impossible (or at least very difficult and expensive) to obtain the hardware spec and source. A company might end-of-life one product but still use the technology underlying it in a new product. Another common scenario is that the company simply no longer want to have to support the old technology.
Now, as someone who does support equipment like this, if the parent had not posted anonymously I would have emailed him to let him know that ISA bus is most assuredly still alive and that brand new systems and ISA based I/O are still available.
nope, I don't thing you'd find a 286 in an embedded app. They've all gone 32 bit (wrt x86). I may be mistaken but I don't think anyone actually makes a 80286 compatible chip any more.
Don't you see, this is natures version of grey goo. Who needs nano-machines when you can have a fungus do it for you... It's a bad idea; a really bad idea.
I admit, I pulled a number out of my ass and made it excessively large. The grand parent post referred to conventional rockets. Not nuclear powered, ion or VASIMR. I assumed you were continuing along the same thread -- conventional. Coasting to the a star 10.5 ly from Earth could literally take 100,000 years. It's been my experience, unfortunately, that when someone believes one can send a probe to a nearby star they have no idea what the distances involved are. They've been watching (and believing) too much sci-fi.
Having said that, Even at 1000 years, it's unlikely that any government would ever fund that project. Time-scale is too long.
By the way, I agree with you wrt nuclear. Absolutely nothing wrong with using nuclear power on the surface, below it, or in space.
What bothers me is that the politicians push a requirement like that on the schools. It's FUD and it does nothing but enhance the public fears. The RTG's are designed to survive a launch vehicle failure as well as the subsequent impact when it falls to the ground. There won't be "nuclear fallout".
Could be done with the Shuttle, except that it lifts too little at one shot (re.: ISS requires 30-35 launches), it's a 30 year old craft with a 10-15 year design life, we only have three left and no plans (or parts) to build more, costs too much to operate, and is slated to be moth-balled in 2010.
VASIMIR is not ionize a gas and push it out with an electric field. It's ionize a gas, then pump MUCH MUCH MORE energy in using non-contact RF coupling. The push is against a solenoidal magnetic field.
It's not as simple as that. More than one design was included in the review. Several of them are viable, each with advantages and drawbacks. Once Griffen et. al. made a decision, they began behaving as though they had blinders on. There have been several significant issues with the solid booster stack used in Ares I which have cropped up. The design does not pass their own internal safety checks. It's too heavy. It will vibrate so much that the astronauts will not be able to function. Safety systems and redundancy are being cut in order to reduce weight. Now, the launch drift issue. While the engineers may be able to make it work, a significant fraction of the engineering staff and the astronaut core have concerns about the design.
Slashdot Mirror
That's an awsome idea! Thanks.
the remains of the primary will turn up in 50 to 100 years, just sitting on top of the ground where the ice used to be... We'll pick it up then.
What ever happened to thinking positive?
I am absolutely positive that it's dead and will stay that way.
Physics trumps hope every day
That's extremely unlikely as the batteries themselves will freeze, with the temperatures dropping below -150. The damage done by the freeze will most likely destroy them.
They probably could reverse engineer it and write newer code. The manufacturer might offer software for a newer version of Windows or they might not. The manufacturer might have discontinued that model instrument and the only upgrade path is to buy a new instrument.
As to portable code... It depends on what they're doing. As a technician, I've worked at a nuclear physics research facility and I can tell you from experience that we generally had the source; but, it was a mix of Fortran, C, Java, LabView, LabWindows, TCL/TK, etc. Whatever was appropriate at the time. Porting everything to Java or .NET would be prohibitive, taking too much time, cost too much money. There's a performance penalty as well.
Finally, these are not as portable as you might think. Over a period of 10 to 15 years, they're moving targets -- Java in 1998 is not the same as Java in 2008. .NET CLR v1.1 is not the same as .NET CLR v3.5. Not to mention, the hardware specific libraries will change as the architecture changes.
By the way, when that 486 fails, the hard part will be finding another copy of OS/2, not replacing the computer.
Google is your friend. These are industrial computers, not your typical desktop machine. You can build out from a chassis, selecting the appropriate backplane and processor card:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-us&q=picmg+isa
If you're a hobbyist looking to play with ISA bus or old cards, here's a link to a company which makes an ISA to USB adapter. I found these guys on the web; but, to be honest I've never tried their stuff:
http://www.arstech.com/
Thought I was kidding, didn't you...
Frankly the Shuttle was an attempt to jump from the Wright Flyer to a 707. We really needed to build a Ford Trimotor and a DC-3 first.
apt summary. Now that we have the Shuttle experience, however, can we skip the Trimotor and go for the DC-3. They were pretty damn reliable and some are still in use today...
It appears to be a scaled down test bed. The "full size" manned version will undoubtedly be much larger.
Clearly you have not seen photos of the wreckage. If he was alive when the plane struck the mountain, he wasn't after it did.
Actually, his situation is not that uncommon. Proprietary hardware OFTEN comes with proprietary software; and, the company will most certainly not give you the specs or source code for their proprietary technology. Given that the equipment is 15 years old, it is probable that the instrument has long exceeded both its design life and its support life; ie. the company which manufactured it no longers supports that product.
Even after the product is no longer supported, it is often impossible (or at least very difficult and expensive) to obtain the hardware spec and source. A company might end-of-life one product but still use the technology underlying it in a new product. Another common scenario is that the company simply no longer want to have to support the old technology.
Now, as someone who does support equipment like this, if the parent had not posted anonymously I would have emailed him to let him know that ISA bus is most assuredly still alive and that brand new systems and ISA based I/O are still available.
nope, I don't thing you'd find a 286 in an embedded app. They've all gone 32 bit (wrt x86). I may be mistaken but I don't think anyone actually makes a 80286 compatible chip any more.
Who needs fungus. Bodies burn just fine.
Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!
I couldn't resist.
Don't you see, this is natures version of grey goo. Who needs nano-machines when you can have a fungus do it for you... It's a bad idea; a really bad idea.
I admit, I pulled a number out of my ass and made it excessively large. The grand parent post referred to conventional rockets. Not nuclear powered, ion or VASIMR. I assumed you were continuing along the same thread -- conventional. Coasting to the a star 10.5 ly from Earth could literally take 100,000 years. It's been my experience, unfortunately, that when someone believes one can send a probe to a nearby star they have no idea what the distances involved are. They've been watching (and believing) too much sci-fi.
Having said that, Even at 1000 years, it's unlikely that any government would ever fund that project. Time-scale is too long.
By the way, I agree with you wrt nuclear. Absolutely nothing wrong with using nuclear power on the surface, below it, or in space.
What bothers me is that the politicians push a requirement like that on the schools. It's FUD and it does nothing but enhance the public fears. The RTG's are designed to survive a launch vehicle failure as well as the subsequent impact when it falls to the ground. There won't be "nuclear fallout".
"quite a while to get there"
yeah, like maybe 100,000 years.
OK, but I'm gonna need about 1/2 trillion dollars to get the job done.
Mercury: What the Earth is eventually going to look like, no matter what we do.
Could be done with the Shuttle, except that it lifts too little at one shot (re.: ISS requires 30-35 launches), it's a 30 year old craft with a 10-15 year design life, we only have three left and no plans (or parts) to build more, costs too much to operate, and is slated to be moth-balled in 2010.
VASIMIR is not ionize a gas and push it out with an electric field. It's ionize a gas, then pump MUCH MUCH MORE energy in using non-contact RF coupling. The push is against a solenoidal magnetic field.
Higher efficiency comes from higher exhaust velocities requiring less reaction mass (fuel) in order to provide the requisite propulsion
It's not as simple as that. More than one design was included in the review. Several of them are viable, each with advantages and drawbacks. Once Griffen et. al. made a decision, they began behaving as though they had blinders on. There have been several significant issues with the solid booster stack used in Ares I which have cropped up. The design does not pass their own internal safety checks. It's too heavy. It will vibrate so much that the astronauts will not be able to function. Safety systems and redundancy are being cut in order to reduce weight. Now, the launch drift issue. While the engineers may be able to make it work, a significant fraction of the engineering staff and the astronaut core have concerns about the design.
The current incarnation of the J2 has very little to do with the original J2, except for the general design.
Not on it's own. You would need to assemble a ship in orbit out of two or three launches. But... This is how Ares is intended to be used too.
Saw that one too. I work in the research park just outside the Langley gates.