The Computer on the Space Shuttle Sucks

If I'm not mistaken, the primary reason they haven't updated their computers is because they know the ones they have now, work? At least, that's what I think was the reason?
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
NASA just isn't the cutting edge science agency it was in the 60s. Neither is Bell Labs. We need a new challenge for a new space program, for example, to develop technology that will take man out of this solar system in the next 20 years. The tech does not exist today, but if we put up the effort to do this seriously, it can be done.

Everything we have today is not new, it has been leveraged off research done 50 years ago. All we have done is take the same tech and miniaturize it. The only advances of note would be in biology and materials. We need to do away with combustion based propulsion systems for one thing.
Click to expand...

People in this thread have pointed out the reasons of why they have not upgraded is the large cost to harden computer equipment. You do not want mission critical equipment to fail on the shuttle. Laptops are a different situation......
 
NASA uses hardware in the Space Shuttle that seems antiquated to us because all of its problems and inconveniences are completely understood. They know exactly what the systems will do during the entire course of a mission, which allows them to design the mission to work around the known problems. Known problems are no problem. Changing the system even a little bit to get around an inconvenient year rollover problem will create new unknown problems, and unknown problems kill you in outer space.
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
NASA just isn't the cutting edge science agency it was in the 60s. Neither is Bell Labs. We need a new challenge for a new space program, for example, to develop technology that will take man out of this solar system in the next 20 years. The tech does not exist today, but if we put up the effort to do this seriously, it can be done.

Everything we have today is not new, it has been leveraged off research done 50 years ago. All we have done is take the same tech and miniaturize it. The only advances of note would be in biology and materials. We need to do away with combustion based propulsion systems for one thing.
Click to expand...


One reason this won't work: No money to make in it.
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
NASA just isn't the cutting edge science agency it was in the 60s. Neither is Bell Labs. We need a new challenge for a new space program, for example, to develop technology that will take man out of this solar system in the next 20 years. The tech does not exist today, but if we put up the effort to do this seriously, it can be done.

Everything we have today is not new, it has been leveraged off research done 50 years ago. All we have done is take the same tech and miniaturize it. The only advances of note would be in biology and materials. We need to do away with combustion based propulsion systems for one thing.
Click to expand...

The problem is that a large part of American society does not trust science for various reasons. Some faith based, some tinfoil hat based and most people not realizing how much space technology has changed their lives. They all don't see a value in it, and that's whats hurting them, and new development of technology in general. Hell, we just saw a perfect example with that guy saying nasa should be closed and outsourced.
 
The Hubble Telescope is a speed demon compared to the shuttle: a 25 MHz radiation hardened Intel 486 with two megabytes of RAM
 
bacon said:
Honestly NASA needs to be scrapped, it runs like any other bloated government agency now. We would all be better off if all that budget were given to a new agency ran by JAXA .
Click to expand...

Meh, it would take one round of the annual budget fight for JAXA to get noticed by US politicians, which would then screw it up as bad as NASA. It's the politics in the US, as much as anything else, that has NASA the way it is.
 
Fenris_Ulf said:
386's would be a tremendous upgrade to the shuttle. They currently run five IBM AP-101S mainframe computers (four redundant primary, one backup) with about 1 Meg of memory and about 1.2 MIPs. Changing those out requires new software, OS, flight cerification (huge expense), etc. The shuttles have exceeded their expected lifespan, so nobody wants to invest in new hardware/software/certification for just one or two more missions per shuttle. Not cost effective when there's something that already works well enough.

Space is a very harsh environment and it costs a great deal to get anything up there, so only tested, ruggedized, validated components are used, perferably MILSPEC or better. The last standard CPU to be specifically designed and tested for space is a special version of the 386 with special radiation sheilded packaging.
Click to expand...

Someone with an actual clue.;)

BTW the laptops mentioned are non critical systems, thus no requirements.
JAXA you may want to look into what they've actually accomplished
NASA budget, you may want to check out the http://www.federalbudget.com/, only a portion of the budget is manned space flight.
Overall cost, is related to risk, risk is to be minimal so cost goes up (certification).
 
JUSTJOEL73 said:
NASA just isn't the cutting edge science agency it was in the 60s. Neither is Bell Labs. We need a new challenge for a new space program, for example, to develop technology that will take man out of this solar system in the next 20 years. The tech does not exist today, but if we put up the effort to do this seriously, it can be done.

Everything we have today is not new, it has been leveraged off research done 50 years ago. All we have done is take the same tech and miniaturize it. The only advances of note would be in biology and materials. We need to do away with combustion based propulsion systems for one thing.
Click to expand...
As others have mentioned there are no gains to run new systems on the Shuttle at this point in time.
As to new tech, generating water and oxygen on the moon or mars seems pretty cutting edge to me http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,558101,00.html and http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/090930-tw-tapping-moon-water.html
 
What in the hell has NASA even done that's been for the benefit of our country? Find POSSIBLE water on the moon? Collect space rocks?

Now I won't go and say some of the stuff isn't "cool" but honestly, I think we could help our budget out a little if we just got rid of NASA. The cold war is over, we won, forget about it.
 
Ryokurin said:
The problem is that a large part of American society does not trust science for various reasons. Some faith based, some tinfoil hat based and most people not realizing how much space technology has changed their lives. They all don't see a value in it, and that's whats hurting them, and new development of technology in general. Hell, we just saw a perfect example with that guy saying nasa should be closed and outsourced.
Click to expand...

That reminds me of the latest episode of Family Guy where Stewie showed Brian a universe without religion. Everything was much more advanced! lol

But I agree, if many more Americans help put effort into newer technologies, we can do much much more.
 
nerv63 said:
What in the hell has NASA even done that's been for the benefit of our country? Find POSSIBLE water on the moon? Collect space rocks?

Now I won't go and say some of the stuff isn't "cool" but honestly, I think we could help our budget out a little if we just got rid of NASA. The cold war is over, we won, forget about it.
Click to expand...

Didn't stay awake in class, didn't we?
 
nerv63 said:
What in the hell has NASA even done that's been for the benefit of our country? Find POSSIBLE water on the moon? Collect space rocks?

Now I won't go and say some of the stuff isn't "cool" but honestly, I think we could help our budget out a little if we just got rid of NASA. The cold war is over, we won, forget about it.
Click to expand...

Lol NASA is such a small part of our budget it is nearly insignificant. Also, they have confirmed water up there...
 
nerv63 said:
What in the hell has NASA even done that's been for the benefit of our country? Find POSSIBLE water on the moon? Collect space rocks?

Now I won't go and say some of the stuff isn't "cool" but honestly, I think we could help our budget out a little if we just got rid of NASA. The cold war is over, we won, forget about it.
Click to expand...

From website I found:
enriched baby food, water purification, scratch resistant lenses, pool purification, ribbed swimsuits, golf ball aerodynamics, portable coolers/warmers, sports training, athletic shoes, the Dustbuster, shock absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, quartz crystal timing equipment
etc. etc.

more here: http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html
 
jojo69 said:
welcome to a has-been empire

like it or not, its something to get used to
Click to expand...

Dude. Nasa has been trying to get funding to build something new since the 90s. Several projects were canceled because they were deemed too elaborate and others due to funding. I hate to say it, but the Columbia tragedy is probably the only reason why constellation is as far as it is, and they aren't stopping the shuttle next year because of funding, it was because it was mandated by directives put in to place by President Bush. Several bills are in play to extend the date, some keeping it going until at least 2015 when Orion should be ready.
 
nerv63 said:
What in the hell has NASA even done that's been for the benefit of our country? Find POSSIBLE water on the moon? Collect space rocks?
Click to expand...
Wow, just wow. I'm so blinded by the ignorance of that statement, I can't tell if your a troll or just that dumb.

Try searching for the words "NASA" and "Spinoff". Nevermind, your post hints that you may lack the capability to do that yourself.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Nasa+spinoffs
 
Reliability is paramount. The shuttle computers are designed to work in extreme conditions without breaking down. They don't need the computing power to play games, they need the code to work the same way every time without having to reboot, without worrying about overheating, vibration, cold, vacuum or, driver issues.

The shuttle systems are terribly antiquated with regards to current chips but, can you guarantee your computer will continue to play Crysis after drop kicking it across the room? The Shuttle computers would land it just fine if you did the same.
 
So do the computers suck as the thread title says? Or do they just suck if you wanted to use it to play World of Warcraft? Because obviously that's all NASA is for, spending billions on photos of rocks and old computers.
 
Auzner said:
So do the computers suck as the thread title says? Or do they just suck if you wanted to use it to play World of Warcraft? Because obviously that's all NASA is for, spending billions on photos of rocks and old computers.
Click to expand...

No it sucks because it can't be trusted to roll into the new years properly
 
Doesn't the military have powerful computers that can also take a beating? I wonder what they're using, but it's got to be up there given some of the technology behind the weapons, information, and training systems(simulators).
 
K2e2vin said:
Doesn't the military have powerful computers that can also take a beating? I wonder what they're using, but it's got to be up there given some of the technology behind the weapons, information, and training systems(simulators).
Click to expand...
Yes they do. However, military computers usually don't factor in Solar Radiation because most of them are bound to the earth. Many military CPU's are atleast shielded from any EMP that would result from a nuclear blast.

I would be interested to see what kind of computing power the military puts into satellites though for a direct comparison to NASA.
 
you have to realize this is custom build hardware made in the 70s for tasks like calculating orbital trajectory and stuff like maintenance on the tanks and heaters etc.

this isnt a software problem, the actual hardware is so customized it isnt upgradable.

to be honest this is totally understandable. the stuff that gets into space isnt the most high tech, its the most dependable. that frequently means its outdated tech before it even is sent up, because its well tested and understood tech.

the stuff was "outdated" technology before the shuttle even launched, and it hasnt been changed since because it is dependable.
 
The Computer on the Space Shuttle Sucks
Click to expand...

The Space Shuttle sucks.

It was a huge waste of money considering its limited capabilities. The sooner they kill it off and accelerate Ares I development the better. If we had kept the Saturn V we could have accomplished the same objectives as the entire ISS/Shuttle program in 30 missions (and for half the price).
 
If it works, then why bother 'fixing' it?

Not launching just before new years is not a major issue.

If all goes to hell, the Russians are still there, with a space program.
 
It is not as easy as some people think. There was a lot of time and money spent designing and testing those computers. NASA personal are also trained to use those. You can't use pop in a new computer and send the space shuttle off. That could end up being disastrous. Those computers do their job and the people running in the shuttle and in the control room know exactly with what they are dealing with.

Besides, the shuttle is going away next year. I believe the US will be using spacecraft through Russia to get to the space station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top