What is Digg?25 Comments
- expunged, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This has nothing to do with the article.
Sometimes, using the latest and greatest is not what you want. The fact that 486 CPUs are a completely known quantity is enough of a reason by itself to keep using them.
Here's another thought. Sometimes, it's cheaper to manufacture things that fail a certain percentage of the time than it is to engineer something that won't, especially with more complicated systems. As processors get more and more complicated and as the cost on processors comes down, something has to give. That something is usually quality. Tolerating a failure on your desktop at home isn't a big deal- tolerating a failure on a space shuttle is.
An example everyone is familiar with is the Windows Blue Screen of Death. The BSOD exists because it's cheaper for Microsoft to require a reboot than it is for them to engineer handling of the issues that lead to a BSOD in the first place.
I'd rather they stick with the 486 and be safe, thanks. - BLACKEAGLE, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10SCARY VERY SCARY
- Griffin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5NASA does have a shuttle replacement, it's called the CEV for Crew Exploration Vehicle which is supposed to be ready 4 years after the Space Shuttle is retired in 2010.
The shuttle design may be 30 years old, but there have been major refits on all the shuttles as technology has changed. For STS-101 (May 2000), Atlantis was retrofitted with the Glass Cockpit MEDS which replaced a lot of the older technology on the flight deck. The MEDS were installed on all Shuttles in 2002. Also, Discovery and Atlantis have had major changes made to the main engines which is why you don't see Endeavour anywhere on the future flight lists. Also, Canada has developed a large camera boom for the CanadArm. - cebailey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"NASA gets boat loads of money, yet there isn't a single project to replace the Shuttle?"
First of all, NASA doesn't get "boat loads" of money compared to anything in the federal government. NASA's FY07 budget weighs in around $16.8 billion, which is 0.7% of the federal budget. So for every $100 you pay in income tax, 70 cents goes to NASA. In contrast, the 2006 budget for Health & Human Services (think Medicare and Medicaid) was roughly $642 BILLION (give or take a few billion.)
As to your other incorrect statement, NASA is currently evaluating proposals from major aerospace companies for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV. This is the first step in a multi-vehicle fleet that will replace the shuttle with Lego-style parts that can be combined to send crews to the moon, lift satellites into orbit, and so on. Development will probably start at the end of the year.
"They use 486 CPUs on the basis they can "see each command go through," but isn't it time to move on?"
486? That's cutting-edge compared to what's on the shuttle. However, you don't really understand the architecture of the shuttle computer system. When you have multiple processors doing separate specific tasks, much more can be done with slower chips. That's why your TiVo can use a bunch of really slow processors to 'time-shift' TV, something that usually requires a 1.5GHz+ processor on a desktop computer.
You might need a 4GHz processor to download all of your pr0n and spyware, but that doesn't mean that NASA does. When you don't run Windows XP, you don't need all that power. And besides, special operating systems, programs, and even programming languages (HAL/S anyone?) have been developed for the shuttle, and RIDICULOUS amounts of testing is required before any SOFTWARE changes get approved, and harware's even worse! Changing the CPU on the shuttle is not quite as easy as popping the side off of a $12 Taiwanese computer case.
"NASA still thinks we landed on the moon yesturday..."
Nope. We just have a system we've been using for its intended life span, and it's almost over. The shuttle wasn't built to go to the moon - it was built to orbit the earth and build the International Space Station (well, technically it was built to build Space Station Freedom, but that's another ridiculously long comment. But what do I know, I just work here...) - Enterprise8875, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I am an engineer (now I am not a rocket engineer so I wont pretend to be anywhere near as smart as these guys) but you have to remember it’s our jobs to be cautious. If you always listened to the engineers we would never launch anything because it will always be too dangerous.
Just remember that this is a giant rocket that is sending people to space. NO IT’S NOT SAFE! And everyone understands that but we do it anyway. That’s how you advance as a society, you must take risks. - diggduggjoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The 486 has benefits from not having very tiny transistors. In space, they do not have the shielding we have under the atmosphere. Cosmic rays and other radiation can corrupt modern CPUs more often than older tech.
Plus, it does the job. Sending a Cray to do a calculator's job is inefficient. - pseudojd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6they are going ahead with this launch when all the Engineers are saying don't do it.... is it going to take a 3rd time to bring some common sense into NASA?!
- mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I'd resign too if we haven't moved past 30 year old technology.
NASA gets boat loads of money, yet there isn't a single project to replace the Shuttle?
They use 486 CPUs on the basis they can "see each command go through," but isn't it time to move on?
NASA still thinks we landed on the moon yesturday... - Twinked, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When I read he was demoted and moved to Va from the Houston complex. I had a feeling his resignation wasn't to far behind. I wholeheartedly agree with his view points. I'm no rocket scientist but if your engineers are saying "more testing, more changes need to be made" then you don't place lives in the balance to prove a point as management.
- mirunit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I would gladly pay 1% more in taxes if NASA got all that money. Space Exploration is somthing that had been far too underrated by our politicians and some media.
- skor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No dig. Misleadin story. The dispute was not over mission safety, but over promotion of people within Engineering. Better details at the links below.
Full text of Charlie's "resignation" email: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/06/camarda_out_alt.html#more
And he's back on the Mission Management team for STS-121: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/06/official_camard.html - skidzilla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Exactly. Nothing can ever be 100% safe. 2 Bad flights out of 114 are my kind of odds.
"...a 2% death rate per astronaut per flight.":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle#Flight_statistics_.28as_of_August_25.2C_2005.29 - Athyrius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is easy to see what is happening. Real scientists are being replaced by politically correct minions and good old boys (GOB's).
Classic. High-level elected idiots appointing low-level idiots to high positions; who in a fair world would qualify as streetsweepers or cab drivers. Like this idiot here: http://usatoday.feedroom.com/ifr_main.jsp?nsid=b-7e6b368b:10c20121cf9:6b3f&st=1151597756656&mp=FLV&cpf=false&fr=062906_121554_w7e6b368bx10c20121cf9x6b41&rdm=149962.15136745173
He practically drools stupidity from his very pores. - raid517, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This has a very (disturbingly) familiar ring to it.
Maybe they will get away with it - but how long will NASA go on just 'getting away with it'? - legolasegb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Politics in the workplace...can't live with it, can't live without it.
- lubacious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't understand why NASA doesn't listen to its engineers more often. If there is a problem, no amount of faith in a manager or less-informed administrator's decision is going to save those aboard.
- lubacious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You make a good point Enterprise, but I would imagine that there is a threshold of quality that is sought by the engineers; they're smart people, they no nothing is perfect.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If they use modern CPUs (which have very small transistors), they would most likely fail in space. And besides, they don't really need an Athlon x2 up there.
- ihova0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Save the astronauts!
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3When your expert and veteran engineer resigns five-days before a major launch in the middle of controvesy and repeated voices by NASA engineers on the needs for more time to come up with safety measures and improve the shuttle...you know there's trouble brewing.
Am i the only one that thinks that this launch will blow up? - mooninite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'm not saying put up the latest CPU. Not saying it has to be Intel or AMD either. Heck, where's the business to manufacture specialized CPUs for space?
I'm just trying to think outside the box. - NanoStuff, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0"Am i the only one that thinks that this launch will blow up?"
Probably, yes. - lubacious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0But Griffin, don't you think the engineers had something to do wth the massive refits?
- SlicerDicer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2NASA = Need Another Seven Astronauts... Sad indeed
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is