Live data from Hacker News

Old software keeping space missions alive

bbc.com

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#51
post #38

jesus christ, i dont think ive ever seen an article that beats around the bush for as long as this one does before finally getting to the point. anyways, for those who don't have the patience, the title is misleading. it's just some old software from the 90s. It's only ancient if you're one of those people who completely rewrites their entire code base from the ground up every two years because to pad out your resume…

> it's just some old software from the 90s. What nonsense. the 90s is recent, not ancient.

[deleted]

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#52
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also has a vidicon tube for gathering images, although that can no longer be switched on.

Do we know the reason? Heater/cathode failure or HV supply would be likely reasons, or is there now insufficient power from the Pu source to run it? (The HV supply on a vidicons is usually about 700V—that's high enough to be quite stressful on P/S components.)

Yes, to save power. But there's nothing to photograph out there.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#53

jesus christ, i dont think ive ever seen an article that beats around the bush for as long as this one does before finally getting to the point. anyways, for those who don't have the patience, the title is misleading. it's just some old software from the 90s. It's only ancient if you're one of those people who completely rewrites their entire code base from the ground up every two years because to pad out your resume…

It may be true with embedded applications or with Windows. Not on a Mac.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#54
A lot of software wraps old code. There is no reason to replace what works and works well. Besides, modern doesn’t generally mean more reliable or performant. It’s often the other way around.

Over the last few decades, embedded programming hasn’t changed much, for example. The rate of change is much higher with the ultra-abstracted languages.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#55
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drives aren't password protected. Why would one need to take the drives apart? Besides, the text was about extracting the drives, i.e. taking them out of the computer box.

Maybe to access the drive, they have to go through a lockable case. If someone lost the keys to that case, they might have had to pop the locks with a bolt cutter

That was exactly what I was driving at, thanks. In order to take the drives "out of the computer box", one needs to get through the lock on that computer box first.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apollo capsule didn't have a fuel gauge, either, because nobody could figure out how to make a fuel gauge work in weightless conditions. Various schemes failed. The solution turned out to be to have a reserve tank with enough propellant in it to do reentry. Then when the main tank ran dry, you knew just what you could do with what was left.

Since you know how much fuel you start with, can't you integrate something like the time spent firing the engine and use that as gauge?

No, since engines aren't perfect and wastes propellant. Also fuel boils off in space.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#57
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does! But the really interesting thing is that travelling wave tubes are still being used for quite a few modern satellite designs. For example, SiriusXM used them in SXM-9/10, and is probably using them in SXM-11/12.

Yes travelling wave tubes are still very common on modern satellites. They tend to be used most on high power (>50W RF power)/high frequency (K-band and higher) systems. I don't know the exact rationale, but for space systems in the higher frequency and power regimes travelling wave tubes are still more reliable than solid state power amplifiers. Traveling wave tubes are still in the 40-50% efficiency range so they'r…

Right, although I've worked with TWTs, klystrons, etc. in terrestrial equipment and have some familiarity with them, I've only casually thought about the TWTs in the Voyagers and in space use generally.

Given the remarkable longevity of the Voyagers, what I'm surprised about is that there hasn't been much discussion about their componentry and why they've been so reliable. For example I've seen nothing written about the engineering involved in Voyagers' TWTs and why they have been so reliable.

For instance, what is the cathode material, barium, strontium, thorium oxide, etc. used in these TWTs? Was its selection criteria based on emitters with the lowest work function/highest emission at the lowest temperature with preservation of the heater life foremost in mind, and or was it based on oxides with highest ruggedness—least affected by cathode poisoning, etc. Discussions about Richardson's laws and cathode emitters is something I almost never come across these days let alone how they've played a role in the engineering of Voyagers' longevity.

Whilst component manufacturers consider these matters, terrestrial users generally don't, we just reach for replacement parts when components fail. Perhaps I'm just not reading the right material but given the remarkable performance of these spacecraft, I'm surprised we're not focusing on the science and engineering that's made that all possible.

No doubt those who're involved in space engineering are focused on these issues but it seems to me not much information has filtered down to even people like me who have some limited knowledge of the technology let alone the general science-reading public.

Using the Voyagers' history and notoriety would be an excellent way to interest students in the physics of TWTs not to mention the material science and the engineering used in their design and manufacture.

When one considers it, there's a lot of fascinating science and engineering involved in making this 'relic' from the vacuum tube era function and keeping it so.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do we know the reason? Heater/cathode failure or HV supply would be likely reasons, or is there now insufficient power from the Pu source to run it? (The HV supply on a vidicons is usually about 700V—that's high enough to be quite stressful on P/S components.)

Yes, to save power. But there's nothing to photograph out there.

Makes sense, nice to know it wasn't due to failure.

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, to save power. But there's nothing to photograph out there.

Makes sense, nice to know it wasn't due to failure.

maybe not.

https://buy.hpe.com/us/en/compute/apollo-systems/apollo-80-s...

502 Bad Gateway

Re: Old software keeping space missions alive

#60
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only context in which the technical difference between memory and disk can be glossed over is one where the audience is made of laypersons that wouldn’t understand the first thing about seekable vs random-access memory in the first place. A tech-illiterate author/editor is the much more plausible explanation.

On the other hand, a modern SSD is probably faster than RAM on a spaceship from the 90s. (Don’t quote me on this, I didn’t double check). All of a sudden I had an urge to get MS-DOS to run with a SSD as memory. Unfortunately I know DOS can’t address 1TB of memory, but the mental image of it is hilarious.

I'm not sure you'll see this, but just in case: the Apollo Guidance Computer used RAM called "core rope memory", and the cycle time was 11.7 microseconds[1]. This isn't too far off from what the best SSDs can achieve for random reads at 8-10 microseconds[2], although these numbers are likely for their minimum block size of 512 bytes.

[1] https://history.nasa.gov/afj/compessay.html

[2] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/micron-finally-rolls-3d-xp...

Post reply on HN