scary NASA stuff. i ain't going to mars!

[D. Gauss]

ok, anybody see the story in the Sunday NY Times on NASA? seems the space shuttles are in need of repair. problem is, it's very hard to find the (insert sarcastic tone here) "high tech" parts that are needed for the computer system reapirs. SO, the engineers have been on EBAY buying up tons 8086 CPU's for the shuttle's computer system! jeeze, don't you think they could upgrade/retrofit things to at least run on a 286 box? a 486? my gosh would a pentium 1 be too much to ask for a Space Shuttle? "mr. sooloo, we're going to mars. set a course on the commodore 64 pronto!" -d. gauss

[Rog]

Just so long as they don't start running Windows ... I doubt PC World sends spotty, undertrained techs into orbit because NASA can't get the new drivers for the landing gear to work ;)

[Franknputer]

OK, we've finished the upgrade - [img]http://www.louisville.edu/a-s/astech/images/bsod.gif[/img] Uh-oh...where's the Duct Tape? :freak:

[D. Gauss]

i have an old 286 in the basement somewhere. i wish it was a 8086. i'd put it up on EBAY: "Space age microprocessor for sale. perfect for rock science, space travel, etc. Excellent condition. No reserve. Bidding starts at 3 million dollars. buyer pays shipping." -d. gauss

[Alndln]

So let me get this straight,the guy in the "Back Street Boy's" will have a 386 or 486 under his ass blasting him into outer space? This is too good to be true,with any luck............

[Tedster]

Gee, maybe it's not too late to chip in for a seat for Britney and N'Sync...???

[Botch.]

In all seriousness, I used to work for Thiokol and understand why NASA is using "old" equipment. Ever buy a new piece of software or hardware that worked perfectly? Never crashed once? I didn't think so. Unfortunately when a computer system goes down in outer space astronauts may die, or at the very least a multi-million or even billion-dollar system becomes "space junk". When software is written for space applications it goes through an incredible amount of testing, testing, and retesting in order to work the bugs out (I'd point out that Bill Gates' net worth is much much more than NASA's annual budget, too bad MS doesn't do similar debugging!). Once this time and money is invested into the hardware/software system, you just can't simply upgrade it all when a more powerful system comes along, NASA just can't afford it. I've been involved with several military systems that have the same problem, a top secret certified system can no longer be operated because the 8.5" floppy drive (that's not a typo) needs to be replaced and no one can find one! Years ago military systems were at the cutting edge of technology; that just isn't the case anymore and probably won't be.

[Tiny G]

New Studio Description: Studio A features more computer processing power than the Space Shuttle!

[ha ha faa_Q]

While on a DoD tour through the Med, I got an opportunity to go inside a Los Angeles class attack nuclear submarine. I was expecting something out of hollywood, but all the instrumentation was analog, and they weren´t planning to update it at any time. The reason is because analog controls can be repaired very quickly, whereas digital components require much more time to find a specific part, engineer, etc. Maybe NASA has the same idea.

[Wrave]

I think this is a pretty good indication of the hype the computer industry (read Micro$loth) has foisted on the consuming public. Without their constant, wasteful utilization of the hardware available (read sloppy programming) we might still be chugging along on 486s, but we'd never even know it because the operating system, the software, would be so efficient and bug free we'd not need 100Gb hard drives and 1.5Ghz processors. (OK, maybe we'd need to 100Gb drives. :D Audio data does take up a bit of space!) Which brings up my favorite question, since Macs OS X is built on Linux, when is the music tech industry gonna stop playing the Micro$loth game of annual upgrades (A policy inaugurated by MS just to make another dollar...it never has anything to do with releasing a more stable, efficient or faster OS) and begin writing their software for the Linux platform? By the way, NASA likes linux because it is an incredibly small OS, easily embedded into small amounts of static memory and requiring minimal processing power. It is so stable it is trusted above the Intel/MS rapid expansion and growth at the cost of reliability. If linux is good enough to go to the moon, surely it is good enough to be the OS for commercial audio production. I use a dual boot machine. I never leave Linux except for the audio in MS Windoze. I'd love to be able to do it all in Linux. Thanks for letting me blow off a little steam. Jeez I hate MS...Micro$loth...Windoze...mumble... mumble...

[D. Gauss]

[quote]Originally posted by Tiny G: [b]New Studio Description: Studio A features more computer processing power than the Space Shuttle![/b][/quote]New $1.99 Grocery store wristwatch Ad: Features more computer processing power than the Space Shuttle! -d. gauss

[Henchman]

[quote]Originally posted by wrave: [b]I think this is a pretty good indication of the hype the computer industry (read Micro$loth) has foisted on the consuming public. Without their constant, wasteful utilization of the hardware available (read sloppy programming) we might still be chugging along on 486s, but we'd never even know it because the operating system, the software, would be so efficient and bug free we'd not need 100Gb hard drives and 1.5Ghz processors. (OK, maybe we'd need to 100Gb drives. :D Audio data does take up a bit of space!) [/b][/quote]Yeah, It's too bad BeOs died. It qwas amazingly fast on a regular 486. Speaking of OS's, Fairlight uses OS9. When I downloaded their last update, the full zipped file was about 7meg. This very powerfull, High End sytem runs on an OS that can be deliverd in a 7 meg zipfile. Talk about stability.

[Tiny G]

double post

[RobT]

[quote]Originally posted by Botch: [b] When software is written for space applications it goes through an incredible amount of testing, testing, and retesting in order to work the bugs out (I'd point out that Bill Gates' net worth is much much more than NASA's annual budget, too bad MS doesn't do similar debugging!). Once this time and money is invested into the hardware/software system, you just can't simply upgrade it all when a more powerful system comes along, NASA just can't afford it. [/b][/quote]This is very sad but true. There is a magazine called Fast Company that did an article on the amount of testing and signing of legal documents that are done in debugging NASA space flight systems code. The article holds the system design, test and debugging cycle as one of the finest in the world. It is some of the best and most defect free software in the world. Without a doubt. It also challenges the [b] business [/b] world to do the same! Especially in light of the UCITA legislation that most consumers of computer software no next to nothing about. Some code jocks I know working on Defense Department software wish there stuff was this good. So flippant comments aside NASA doesn't have the luxury that we in the digital recording world does. Nobody is going to die if the code in your DAW or MIDI keyboard dies. Although I think some of you are of the opinion that certain boy bands and pop act keyboard players should have there careers die or at least the music that they play! :D RobT

[JimK]

NASA has the same problem the rest of the DoD industry has: how do you build a product over several (sometimes 10-15) years when the technology is changing every 6 to 12 months? When these massive projects start, the target systems (the computers to use) have to be chosen so the engineers (which I am one of) will know what to design to. Six months into a program the computing resources are out dated. Linux, by the way, is a nice OS, but won't be on the space shuttle anytime soon. It is not flight certified. There are few OSes that can be used for aircraft and spacecraft (and no, Microsoft Windows XP, 2000, etc is not one of them). Also, we've moved beyond 486 machines, not because Microsoft is putting out OSes that require more resources, but because chip vendors are constantly building faster chips. Microsoft is just taking advantage of the better chips (and bigger hard drives) by putting more features (and bugs :) :( ) in their OS.

[RobT]

[quote]Originally posted by JimK: [b] Linux, by the way, is a nice OS, but won't be on the space shuttle anytime soon. It is not flight certified. There are few OSes that can be used for aircraft and spacecraft (and no, Microsoft Windows XP, 2000, etc is not one of them). [/b][/quote]RTOS (Real Time Operating Systems) are not cheap to develop or purchase. But they are getting cheaper. Your local nuclear plant ain't running on Window$ either. Rob'YesIamABitHead'T

[Bobro]

http://flightlinux.gsfc.nasa.gov/ This dual-boot internet/everday computer has Win98 and SuSE Linux- it's a rag-tag PII 350 and when running under Linux is noticably faster and smoother- feeling than my completely stripped and optimized PIII 1000 Win98SE audio-only box. :eek: Not to mention completely stable. An audio-specific Linux- Audiux? would be so cool...hasn't happened yet.

[Franknputer]

[quote]Originally posted by Henchman: [b][QUOTE]Yeah, It's too bad BeOs died. It qwas amazingly fast on a regular 486. [/b][/quote]Sorry, have to correct you here - BeOS never could run on 486 processors. BeOS for Intel required a Pentium-class processor. It does, however, run quite well on these - far better than Windoze, so called for the nap you can grab whilst it's processing data (or rebooting for the umpteenth time, or running Scandisk...) Keep an eye on OpenBeOS - They're actually making progress quickly on the reimplementation of the Be API, and are rapidly progressing towards binary compatibility. :thu:

[Jeff Leites]

A while back, I read that they use the old PCs because the CPU chips are not as crowded. Those little silicon parts are relativly larger, and less likly to be zapped by some cosmic particle wizzing through the spacecraft.

[JimK]

Bobro: thanks for the link. Interesting. I stand corrected on the flight certified stuff. What does bother me about this is the government spending lots of money to solve problems that are already being solved in the commercial world (there are plenty of commercially available, flight certified RTOS to choose from). This is a lot like Ada, the DoD developed programming language. The DoD was sure they could develop a language better then what was "out there". So they took a crack at it. The language was hated by many (me included), was expensive, and provided no benefits over many other existing languages. Seems the government insists on spend $600 for a hammer :( .

[surfjunkie]

i think i need some help with this. it's just the interface, i haven't figured out how to hook up rocket engines yet, but i've got craig's book "space exploration projects for musicians" on order. 10 PRINT "BLAST OFF TO MARS? (Y/N)" 20 INPUT A 30 IF A = "Y" THEN GOTO 50 40 GOTO 20 50 PRINT "FIRING ROCKETS..." 60 PRINT "ARE WE THERE YET? (Y/N)" 70 INPUT B 80 IF B = "Y" THEN GOTO 100 90 GOTO 60 100 PRINT "WELCOME TO MARS!" 110 END

[Jeff Leites]

[quote]Originally posted by wager47: [b]i think i need some help with this. it's just the interface, i haven't figured out how to hook up rocket engines yet, but i've got craig's book "space exploration projects for musicians" on order. 10 PRINT "BLAST OFF TO MARS? (Y/N)" 20 INPUT A 30 IF A = "Y" THEN GOTO 50 40 GOTO 20 50 PRINT "FIRING ROCKETS..." 60 PRINT "ARE WE THERE YET? (Y/N)" 70 INPUT B 80 IF B = "Y" THEN GOTO 100 90 GOTO 60 100 PRINT "WELCOME TO MARS!" 110 END[/b][/quote]I think I see a loop there,you have to agree to blast off, or sit there forever.

[JES]

[quote]Originally posted by Tiny G: [b]New Studio Description: Studio A features more computer processing power than the Space Shuttle![/b][/quote]Ha, maybe I should use that tag line for my basement studio. Begs the question, though, how many 8086s are on the space shuttle? --JES

[Franknputer]

[quote][b] An audio-specific Linux- Audiux? would be so cool...hasn't happened yet.[/b][/quote]There is one in its infancy - [url=http://www.demudi.org/]DeMuDI,[/url] short for Debian Music Distribution, is hoping to do just that. Low-latency kernel with pre-compiled music apps, and of course apt-get for upgrades. :D

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]Gee, maybe it's not too late to chip in for a seat for Britney [/b][/quote]POSSIBLE GROUCHO JOKES: Speaking as a chip if Britney needs a seat.... Count me in for Britney's seat... I really think Britney's seat needs to be "chipped", nudge nudge... Oh well. I'm a much better musical improviser. I saw the potential just sitting there so I had to have a shot at it...

[Dan South]

There was an excellent documentary on the Shuttle on CNN about a month ago. Absolutely riveting! Interesting problem. They ordered parts for a number of missions (200, I think). They thought that they'd fly all of those missions within five years, then design or order new parts. Well, they haven't flown anywhere NEAR that many missions, so they still have lots of spare parts, but they're OLD, and many of the manufacturers aren't even in business anymore. But the money people won't give them any more cash, because they supposedly still have parts for many more flights. The vehicle needs a complete overhaul. It takes a minimum of six months to get one ready to fly after it lands. New technology would cut that time radically. The old design relies on 1970's technology, hard to access parts, and LOTS of very hazardous chemicals. The shuttle is a bomb waiting to explode. Write to your Congressmen and urge them to spend on NASA instead of the next ENRON.

[Bobro]

[quote]Originally posted by franknputer: [b] [quote][b] An audio-specific Linux- Audiux? would be so cool...hasn't happened yet.[/b][/quote]There is one in its infancy - [url=http://www.demudi.org/]DeMuDI,[/url] short for Debian Music Distribution, is hoping to do just that. Low-latency kernel with pre-compiled music apps, and of course apt-get for upgrades. :D [/b][/quote]Cool- I'll keep an eye on that. I've also been watching the development of Ardour. Chip and Britney, now there's a thought... if he would grow some pointy Conquistador mustaches, we could be reading about the torrid affair any time! Penniless Plectrum Professor Porks Pop Puppet! Sleepless in Atlanta- "I used to complain about my insomnia", muses guitarist Chip MacDonald, "but it's really a blessing in disguise. It's just Nature's way of giving me more chances to say "oops, I did it again!" ".

[Mark V]

I work in heavy industry,they like to use "tried and true" technology,like the Foxboro process computers they just upgraded to,these are their latest models, barely up to Pentium technology...cost..millions of dollars. I,m not sure if NASA is like the US armed forces but it was only a few years ago that the USAF would pay $75 for a plastic knob to go over the foot of a steel framed chair.Cost must be a major constraint,I am sure that the likes of NASA have provided a nice gravy train to some suppliers and contractors over the years.

[Dan South]

[quote]Originally posted by wager47: [b]i think i need some help with this. it's just the interface, i haven't figured out how to hook up rocket engines yet, but i've got craig's book "space exploration projects for musicians" on order. 10 PRINT "BLAST OFF TO MARS? (Y/N)" 20 INPUT A 30 IF A = "Y" THEN GOTO 50 40 GOTO 20 50 PRINT "FIRING ROCKETS..." 60 PRINT "ARE WE THERE YET? (Y/N)" 70 INPUT B 80 IF B = "Y" THEN GOTO 100 90 GOTO 60 100 PRINT "WELCOME TO MARS!" 110 END[/b][/quote]GOTO jail for using GOTO's! ;)