What is Digg?Sponsored by wix.com
31 Comments
- kunjan1029, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"HAL may soon be getting some company. But unlike the famous computer companion in **********Stanley Kubrick ’s********* “2001: A Space Odyssey,” the first space-based supercomputer — so described because it will be by far the most powerful computer in space — is already nearing reality."
Somewhere in Sri Lanka, an old man is yelling out...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C_Clarke - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10It better have a pod bay doors override button is all I am saying.
- IceUck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7HAL would have been able to find Sarah Connor, though. Skynet was an r-tard by comparison...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6All it has to do now is play Crysis with all settings set to high.
- WestDC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Why, it'll be the fastest computer IN THE WORLD*!
* For a brief period. - wush, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the most powerful computer in space that we know about ;-)
- everfalling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"so described because it will be by far the most powerful computer in space"
so, considering the computing technology in space currently, i'm guessing a dell? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33001 was better anyways...
- thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Worthless without the Quake3 FPS.
:P - kettlechips, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3PS3 goes to space
- addw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3“HAL ... 2001", typical IT project, 5 years late already!
- FallibleDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Sounds like they'll use something along the lines of the Linux "badmem" patch, only with the ability to detect and disable bad processors too.
On having a powerful computer in space... all sorts of tasks are probably missed out on right now; mainly ones where the round-trip latency from earth and back would make a higher earth-based processing speed useless. Can't really think of *current* examples though... in the future, they may want things like particle accelerators in space, with real-time analysis. Actually, I hear there's a "natural particle accelerator" that has been detected in space. Does anyone have examples of what's needed NOW? - StarDal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hope they get the 24x7 3 year extended support on that one.
- FallibleDragon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1They forgot M5 and Dr. Theopolis ;)
- RadiatedAnt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Do you want me to sing you a song Dave?....
- drpollo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Read the article, the communication links doesn't have so much bandwidth, and sensors in satellites nowadays gather huge amounts of information. With more computer power on space you can preprocess that info before sending it to Earth and balance better the available resources.
- stalefries, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Playing video games?
- IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think when the Shuttle first launched, it had '70s-era computers, and it wasn't until 1997 that they were updated.
With IBM 386s.
Yeah, NASA needs to get its act together. (The whole Shuttle program was a crock anyway...) - PanteroBlanco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The reason that NASA uses older computers on space missions is NOT lack of funding. Industrial and embedded processors are usually at least two or three generations behind what you'll have on your desktop, because you don't want lives depending on something new and untried when old and tested will do just fine.
- BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Whats the point in putting a super computer in space?"
We're talking about celestial mechanics here, and multiple billions of dollars that rely on being able to do bazillions of calculations and act on them - sometimes within fairly narrow windows of opportunity.
Add to that the idea that sometimes the ability to adapt a mission could increase its value exponentially - maybe even saving whole separate missions from being launched, or saving a mission from going *****-up beaglestyle.
You could scarcely find a situation where masses of on-board computing power was more useful. - BlackAdderIII, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jambox:
"Surely though, bandwidth isn't a problem in Earth orbit?"
Bandwidth in ideal circumstances isn't a problem wherever it is.
More problematic for spacecraft are latency and continuity (ie disruption though RFI, positioning etc.).
It's no good having 3000000000Tbps of bandwidth and if you want to do something in realtime, and that delay is multiplied to when you have multiple readings that have to be received, adjustments sent back, etc.
For current spacecraft and future ones, this will be a very useful development.
Of course, all this said, it will have to be one very fault tolerant system. - thatsiebguy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can thank poor funding and poor management for that. I wouldn't call the program itself a crock though.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Whats the point in putting a super computer in space?"
The shade of the vacuum of space provides the cooling power necessary to relax the nuclear powered processorship. - jambox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yep. used to be they only needed computers for guidance control - so something along the lines of a calculator was enough.
Surely though, bandwidth isn't a problem in Earth orbit? - jeffdodson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Not physorg again? Come on, this site is lame.
jeff knower of knowledge and other stuff - Kaijimbo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ IzeasGT
I watched a Nova documentary some years ago detailing the Discovery's construction. I remember that the host had asked the engineers why they were still using late '70s computers for flight control and navigation when better stuff was available. They said that the smaller microprocessors became, the more they were affected by cosmic radiation and electrical surges. Since the old computers were 'good enough' to do the job, they used them for the essential systems and brought laptops on board to do the science.
It's amazing to me that astronauts can go into space and return using less computing power than my pocket calculator has. - meeek76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0go gators
- IzeasGT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It's complicated. I remember reading that the book is 90% Clarke and 10% Kubrick, vice versa for the movie. It WAS originally Kubrick who approached Clarke with a proposal to make the proverbial "good science-fiction movie."
- jambox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wasn't dr theopolis just the ghost of a dead scientist somehow contained in a kitchen clock? Around a robot's neck? Twiki had a head shaped like a glans, chortle!
- thomasprebble, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Whats the point in putting a super computer in space? They don't even need all the computing power up there, infact the most powerful computers in space right now are the laptops the astronauts bring up with them. If anything significant must be crunched it is must easier to do it on Earth and beam the answer back up.
- jambox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+02001 wasn't a fantastic book - you read Clarke for the ideas, not the prose.
Most people haven't read the book, only seen the film anyways and it's true that most of what you remember about it was Kubrick's. So fair comment.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is