Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: And we wonder why NASA's space shuttle blew up.

  1. And we wonder why NASA's space shuttle blew up.

    https://www.geek.com/chips/nasa-need...-chips-549867/

    This was an article from 2002.

    Quote Originally Posted by geek
    in 1981 nasa sent up the first space shuttle, which used intel 8086 processors for a host of diagnostic equipment. more than 20 years on these chips are still being used to make sure the shuttle's twin booster rockets are safe for blast-off, and nasa is finding it increasingly hard to replace any faulty chips.

    in the future the space agency plans to create a new us$20 million dollar automated checking system, but in the meantime it has to rely on the old equipment–if something breaks it has to be replaced. up until recently replacement chips have been found in old medical equipment that nasa buys in bulk, but even these reserves are running low now, and the internet seems to be nasa's last resort.

    it is not just the 8086 chips that are required; old circuit boards, 8-inch floppy drives, and a plethora of obsolescent parts are putting a strain on scheduled testing. auction sites such as ebay and yahoo! sell just about everything and have been used by nasa for some of the more hard-to-find items. this search can only get harder however, especially with the current space shuttles scheduled to be in service until at least 2010 (and maybe even 2020).
    Quote Originally Posted by geek
    i was surprised when i read this story … not only that nasa is using such outdated technology but that it plans to continue using it for up to another 18 years! i thought nasa would have a contingency plan in place to upgrade the parts every 5-10 years.

    on the other hand, nasa has to put safety first, and if it has something that is tested and works it sticks with it because human lives are at risk, and the future of the space program could be in jeopardy if anything went wrong.

    in the future, nasa needs to set up a team to develop and test new hardware well in advance, say 5 years; that way the problem of finding old hardware will be slowly wiped out and new hardware will have been thoroughly tested. the only drawback would be the cost to set this up and keep it going.
    Last edited by gamevet; 31 May 2018 at 10:24 PM.

  2. #2
    sounds about right.

  3. I remember this. There was a big plan to upgrade stuff. Then 9/11 happened and we cut space budgets to the bone. Oddly enough, that's a plot point in my story.

  4. The transistors in newer CPUs are susceptible to failure caused by high energy particles passing through them from what I understand.

  5. Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    The transistors in newer CPUs are susceptible to failure caused by high energy particles passing through them from what I understand.
    That sounds reasonable. The march of progress and demand for smaller ecological footprints, etc. would lend to using parts that work okay here but don't hold up under extreme conditions like that.

    People have this unreasonable expectation that we can magically produce durable things that don't cost much. There are formulas that cover expense vs. durability of parts/accuracy of manufacturing and things like that. We say, "Oh they should make transistors that DO stand up to neutrinos!" and then balk at the cost.

  6. We could still make the older style devices, but there's probably not enough demand for it to be worthwhile.

  7. smoke signals seem very reliable, can you see it in space?

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by kedawa View Post
    We could still make the older style devices, but there's probably not enough demand for it to be worthwhile.
    Debatable. Nasa built everything via contracts. And some of the companies we contracted with no longer exist. Or didn't keep good records. It isn't a stretch to say that we'd have to reinvent things if we ever wanted to build new rockets.

    It's becoming increasingly clear that modern corporate capatilism is horrible at preserving culture and knowledge. If it doesn't help with this quarter, fuck it. They're like zombies forever hungry for more, rotting away as they shamble.

  9. The chips were not at fault for either shuttle blowing up.

    Challenger blew up because the weather in Florida on launch day was too cold to keep pressurized gas from leaking out of a seal on one of the booster rockets, which sprayed out onto the main fuel tank and melted a small section of the tank, which caught fire and eventually exploded.

    Columbia burned up on reentry because a chunk of ice fell off the top of the fuel tank during launch and damaged the orbiter which lead to heat shielding being ineffective.

    But they are a good example of why the shuttles were retired. And if you think using that stuff was scary for the shuttle, think about this. All of the stuff the shuttle was using is still being used by your nuclear weapons force.

  10. Yeah, we all know why the 2 shuttles blew up, but it’s just the thought that what we thought of as advanced space technolgy, was anything but. We have drones with better computer tech onboard. That’s scary.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo