Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Testing Mobile Phones For Controlling Space Missions

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the droids-in-space dept.

Cellphones 119

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers in the UK are sending an Android handset into space in order to test whether mobile phone chipsets are robust enough to be be used as the basis for controlling future space missions — greatly reducing the cost and weight of spacecraft electronics. 'Once in space, the phone will be bombarded by cosmic and solar radiation, and experience temperatures that veer between extreme heat and cold. A computer on the ground will check whether the phone is able to operate normally in orbit, and if no problems are found the phone will be used to perform tasks usually carried out by the satellite's main avionics computer.'"

cancel ×

119 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Can you hear me now? (1)

Naatach (574111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985582)

I wonder how many towers they'll connect to at that altitude.

Control the space shuttle? (0)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985714)

There's an app for that!

Re:Control the space shuttle? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985750)

There's an app for that!

Have your fudge packed recently you retarded apple user? Its not even your phone, go away and suck Steve's dick some more physically rather than remotely.

Re:Control the space shuttle? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34986152)

Jealous much? Hahahahaha you're absolutely worthless.

Re:Control the space shuttle? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985762)

Actually not:

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING. Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition. Your comment violated the "postercomment" compression filter. Try less whitespace and/or less repetition.

Re:Control the space shuttle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34987476)

The iPad also had a TOS that said you can't use it outside in another country (at least the UK one did). Didn't stop a plethora of travel apps.

Re:Control the space shuttle? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987560)

I dunno if that will be a smart economical choice.

Those roaming charges are gonna be a mother fucker!!!

Re:Control the space shuttle? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34987668)

You capped it, then violated it. You're either a bad necrophiliac, or a good troll.

I can't decide right now. I'm too busy touching my keyboard - I mean self, I mean... I mean - brain, don't fail me now!

Hey, shouldn't this story be on idle?

AC IS HIDING HIS SHAME, LOOK AWAY

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986142)

I've always thought it would be an easy fix for cell phones to detect that there are too many towers, or use the GPS functionality to determine altitude, and do some adjustments so that they didn't connect to so many towers when being used at high altitudes such as on airplanes. I'm not a cell phone network engineer, but I imagine it wouldn't take too much work to get phones to act in a sane manner when calling from a plane.

Re:Can you hear me now? (1)

heypete (60671) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987992)

I thought the main issues weren't that the phone would try to communicate with several towers (the infrastructure already allows phones to work in multi-tower environments), but rather that (1) the antenna profiles of the towers were such that they focused most of their signal near the ground (where the customers are), rather than in the air, (2) phones used from planes need to switch towers very frequently (due to the high speed of the airplane), and (3) the transmission power of the phone is relatively low.

Oh yes (2)

Renegade Lisp (315687) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985586)

And the logical next step can only be that in commercial aviation, they will start offloading their avionics to the combined processing power of all the cell phones that happen to be on board. Finally, they are coming to their senses!

Re:Oh yes (1)

AB3A (192265) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986134)

Sick joke (at least, I hope it is, because I really do not want to see what the reality of such an idea might look like).

Re:Oh yes (2)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986278)

Imagine a beowulf cluster of planes full of iPhones!

Re:Oh yes (1)

SnarfQuest (469614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986684)

After they force everyone to turn off their cell phones while taking off, the plane will mysteriously crash.

Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (3, Insightful)

mschaffer (97223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985592)

So, when can "us mortals" start using cell phones on airplanes?

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (2)

Naatach (574111) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985616)

Never? Please?

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985876)

Since when has NASA been in charge of the United Kingdom's space program?

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985916)

Since when does the UK have a space program?

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (2)

kryliss (72493) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987260)

The UK knows about space?

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987752)

The UK's space industry is actually booming right now. The country handles the design, administration and construction of all sorts of space hardware. What we don't do is launch. Simple geometry says that the closer to the equator you are, the more practical launching becomes - that's why the US launch facilities are in Florida, about as far south as you can get on US territory. When the UK needs something launched, we just do it from France.

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34989546)

My phone doesn't work in my flat.

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986506)

Once us mortals aren't packed hundreds in a small space where we would justifiably go mad having to listen to inane cellphone conversations of our seatmates.

Re:Sure, NASA allows them on their flights... (5, Insightful)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986744)

No phones on planes, please.

With the status quo, I look at you when we are boarding and presume you are an idiot.

When phones are allowed on planes, after a two hour flight with you chatting away with any moron in your phone book that will listen to you I will know beyond a shadow of a doubt you are an idiot, and be able to list a few dozen reasons why.

Let's keep the mystery going.

No, Just No (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985612)

It's bad enough having people change lanes into me on the freeway while yakking on these damned things. Now I have to worry about avionics computers crashing space stations into my house while blabbing away?!

Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (5, Funny)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985620)

Their App was rejected from the App store.

Re:Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985668)

Do you really think they submitted it for approval? I doubt there would be much general market interest in such an app.

Re:Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (0)

JeffSpudrinski (1310127) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985778)

Whoosh. (...or "double-whoosh" on my part).

Re:Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (1, Funny)

Ancantus (1926920) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985810)

Whoosh. (...or "double-whoosh" on my part).

Which is, coincidentally, also the sound the space shuttle makes when they hit the launch button on the app.

Re:Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (1)

moteyalpha (1228680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985948)

Actually the Japanese robots going to the moon are techno-bigots and want phones called Android. No self respecting robot would use an iPhone, unless it was called I_Robot_Phone.

Re:Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (4, Funny)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986730)

No self respecting robot would use an iPhone

If you visit your local Starbucks, you will find that you are mistaken.

They got source (2)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985954)

Their App was rejected from the App store.

No kernel source, no space rides.

Re:Reason Why They Aren't Using an IPhone (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986492)

Also saves the cost of launching a pentalobular screwdriver into space

Smaller and cheaper electronics... (3, Interesting)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985650)

are smaller and cheaper. That's basically what it says. "We want to use mass produced stuff because it's dirt cheap and made on smaller scales than this expensive rubbish we keep losing by taking a wrong turn at mars. We don't know if it'll work, so we'll send some into space and see what happens, and it will keep that marketeer who keeps asking us what we're really doing busy. He thinks we're working on the iSat. We're just seeing if space-tronics is snake oil or not."

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985790)

Of course, larger, higher power transistors are less likely to be disrupted (or outright DESTROYED) by the random cosmic ray than are the tiny low-power transistors that are used in hand-held consumer electronics. There's a REASON that NASA is still using 386s.

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986172)

I thought they recently upgraded to Pentium 4's and can now program in C, or was that the Air-Force?

Slower and hotter... (1)

xMrFishx (1956084) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986316)

In other news, NASA is testing using banks of old P4's calculating PI to generate enough heat to thrust this test craft into space. Engineers have been quoted saying "They're very hot" and "we're almost at six digits now".

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34986206)

Not only large tech, but hardened large tech. The chip themselves are not consumer grade, but are shielded from radiation and hardened against it. One means larger junctions, not necessarily more power. All electronics is also at very least 2N redundant, hence it is possible to always switch to alternate computer if first one gets fucked up. Everything is redundant, including power supplies.

Using cheap tech like phones could allow for more redundancy in smaller space, if it works. But if these phones die every 6 months, then they are frankly useless for space..

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (3, Interesting)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986716)

True. But one could (theoretically) send 10's or even 100's of cheap systems into space for the cost of 1 high reliability space rated system. When you need the high-rel system, by all means use it; but, don't let it limit you in such a way as to prevent launching clusters of small cheap satellites or robots when that's an acceptable option. There are bound to be cases where that's of benefit.

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

loose electron (699583) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987132)

Actually radiation hardened designs are only done for older architecture processors in many cases.

The path of a highly energized ion leaves a path thru a semiconductor that remains conductive briefly. Can mess up memory, and logic stuff in a big ugly way.

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987154)

That far out there aren't really any cosmic rays to worry about. Quite a lot of the cubesats currently flying are using ARM7 processors, and commercial off-the-shelf UHF transceivers for their comms.

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (3, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986312)

Also, if reliability is an issue, a voting cluster of hundreds of small, cheap CPUs may be both cheaper and more reliable than a few expensive mil-spec CPUs... especially since MIL-spec are generally 10 years behind state-of-the-art by the time they are approved.

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34988760)

This would be somewhat similar to a nuclear plant setup, where multiple computers do the same calculations and the majority result is what gets considered the right one?

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34988830)

Fault-tolerant computers have been around since 1951, and are already used in the Space Shuttle and many other applications. All I'm suggesting is scaling them to use a higher number of smaller, less reliable components to achieve the same level of reliability.

Re:Smaller and cheaper electronics... (1)

DerekLyons (302214) | more than 3 years ago | (#34989516)

Also, if reliability is an issue, a voting cluster of hundreds of small, cheap CPUs may be both cheaper and more reliable than a few expensive mil-spec CPUs...

Cheaper and more reliable maybe... but what about power consumption, heat dissipation, and volume? There's a lot of dimensions to that trade space.
 

especially since MIL-spec are generally 10 years behind state-of-the-art by the time they are approved.

So what? I haven't seen a shred of evidence that this has held back space exploration even a millisecond. Sometime 'ten years behind the state of the art' really is 'more than good enough'. (Not to mention 'proven' and 'well understood'.)

Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se (0)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985712)

Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se... What they, of course, mean is to use small, hand-held tablet-style touch-interface computers. And that is nothing spectacular or notable.

But putting any tool that controls a space mission on a major public network (er... like a phone is), would be ludicrous for safety and security.

Re:Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985820)

You couldn't even finish reading the summary? They're putting chipsets designed for smartphones into space, not using mobile devices to remotely control spacecraft.

Re:Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986846)

You couldn't even finish reading the summary? They're putting chipsets designed for smartphones into space, not using mobile devices to remotely control spacecraft.

You just had to spoil everyone's fun, didn't you?

You were the guy at the premiere of Finding Nemo exclaiming "You realize, of course, that real clown fish could never exist at that depth, nor could they socialize with all those other species. These filmmakers have it all wrong!"

Re:Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987744)

The summary? I read the article. That's why I made the post pointing out that the summary title is a bit misleading.

Re:Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 3 years ago | (#34988814)

When are they not?

Re:Except it'd be stupid to use a phone per se (1)

TheCarp (96830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34989150)

Um... as a test, to see if it is feasible to use for spacecraft controls.

Now, whats so ludicrous? Anything being broadcast over radio waves is "on a major public network". Building a powerful radio, and hooking it up to a parabolic dish and/or whatever else may be involved is a bit beyond me, and possibly you, right this moment, however, it is hardly an intractable problem. It is, essentially a "public medium".

That said... what would be ludicrous is designing it without any sort of message authentication code.... or to use a weak/broken one. Honestly, from what little I know of crypto, I wouldn't even use something based on factoring large primes, but something that is, at least, not currently believed to be solvable via quantum computers. Afterall, we might be talking about something that might be in service for decades.

Doing authentication securely on a public network which can be eavesdropped and where packets can be injected by an attacker is hardly impossible.

2010 (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985716)

1'/\/\ $0rr'/, d4\/3. 1'/\/\ 4Phr41D 1 (4|\|'7 d0 7|-|47

ECC RAM Please!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985732)

Can someone please tell them to use something a bit more powerful that has ECC RAM?
Memory bit flips will be much worse out there above the protective atmosphere...
The last thing anyone needs is a spacecraft malfunction due to a preventable memory error.

http://cr.yp.to/hardware/ecc.html

Re:ECC RAM Please!! (1)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985952)

Space programs can probably afford to use CMOS static RAM.

Nokia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985736)

Hasn't this already been done with Nokai phones...oh yes it has, but because everyone is so enamoured with Apple and Google these days they forget it has all been done before....yawn yawn yawn

Re:Nokia? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986008)

Any links for that test? Couldn't find any.

Liability nightmare (1)

RussellSHarris (1385323) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985742)

Pretty soon the standard disclaimer will read: Not for use in the operation of nuclear facilities or spacecraft...

I hope... (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985744)

...they sign up for the unlimited roaming, text, data and minutes plan.

Ethernet hardware on phones ? (1)

h00manist (800926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986058)

Come to think of it, I guess one of the mandatory hacks would be to add a regular ethernet interface to the phone hardware.

Re:Ethernet hardware on phones ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34987118)

What's wrong with USB?

Can you hear me now? (1)

youn (1516637) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985754)

Abort planetary armageddon you stupid satellite, this is an order! Oh no, no cellular provider, we're doomed

Apple (1)

itof500 (239202) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985792)

And it is not going to be an iPhone.

Anonymousgollem9 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985800)

Your current balance can not cover the cost of this message, plz debit and retry later

Phone will be shielded, says Beeb version (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34985818)

The great swings in temperature and the harsh radiation found in space require the phone be placed inside the satellite casing to give it some protection. A hole will have to be cut in the side of the casing therefore to allow the phone's camera lens to see out.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12253228 [bbc.co.uk]

Is this a joke? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985846)

They aren't stable enough to rely on here on earth, and are no where near 'hard' enough to be out of our atmosphere's protection.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

Microlith (54737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986228)

They aren't stable enough to rely on here on earth

Entirely the fault of sloppy vendors and low quality, poorly tested drivers that aren't in the Kernel. You could dodge all of those issues if you simply didn't use Android and all of Google's custom stuff and instead used a minimalist distribution that used the heavily-hammered-on libraries you see used in production Linux systems.

no where near 'hard' enough to be out of our atmosphere's protection.

This is the first thing that came to my mind. Ultrafine lithography makes transistors easy to mess with, especially in RAM and Flash.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986372)

If they are small enough and cheap enough, you can use massive redundancy to get around the reliability problem. Just stop doing what the Space Shuttle currently does: "One out of the seven computers got a different answer, so we scrubbed the mission."

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986614)

If they are small enough and cheap enough, you can use massive redundancy to get around the reliability problem. Just stop doing what the Space Shuttle currently does: "One out of the seven computers got a different answer, so we scrubbed the mission."

Talking on seven cellphones at once would be somewhat impractical, I imagine.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986698)

They are talking about using cellphone CPUs, e.g. ARM, which have much better performance/power characteristics than X86. Not about using the cellphones themselves.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987218)

I see. I wonder though whether they could all have the same failure mode, given that they are being operated outside specs. It's different when you have 3 (or 7) CPUs that are specified to run in space, where them all failing would be very unlikely, since it would be due to unexpected behavior rather than them all being operated outside specs.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986858)

That's perfectly reasonable for pre-launch. If you get a disagreement before launch, when there should be 100% agreement, that's the perfect time to scrub.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

anyGould (1295481) | more than 3 years ago | (#34988214)

If they are small enough and cheap enough, you can use massive redundancy to get around the reliability problem. Just stop doing what the Space Shuttle currently does: "One out of the seven computers got a different answer, so we scrubbed the mission."

The reason they do that is so they still *have* that massive redundancy once the shuttle is orbiting and you don't have the luxury of just stopping the countdown and letting everyone out for a stretch. Once they're up, this stuff needs to Just Work.

Throw more power at it (0)

klashn (1323433) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985906)

I don't think putting a complex OS out there like Android/iOS or whatever is the solution in this space (pun intended) is the way to go. The custom solution having a long design cycle, will be completely optimized for power and speed. Depending on the workload, the generic phone hardware can be used but what advantage that is gained by using commodity hardware is lost in the lack of optimization of power and speed.
As long as you can live with larger overhead in the operating system and keeping within a power budget of the satellite design, sure phone hardware can be used. Then again, using an OS like these phone OSs is just overkill!

Foursquare (2)

yoblin (692322) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985960)

.. At least not too many people will be competing with you for mayor of the moon

I'm just waiting for the call from my mum (1)

goldcd (587052) | more than 3 years ago | (#34985984)

asking why my phone sent her the txt an hour ago saying "Shields at 5% and falling"

Just a wee bit dicey... (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986004)

Excuse me, but when the astronauts sleep, they see flashes in their eyes caused by energetic particles colliding with the fluid in their eyes and emitting Cerenkov light cones. Forgive me, but that's pretty damn extreme. Are you suggesting that similar impacts with the electronics of a smart phone aren't going to have serious implications both on the calculations the smart phone is making, and the physical hardware of the smart phone itself? I for one would not want to wager my life that a non-rad-hard processor in a smart phone was going to correctly calculate my re-entry vector. Here, hold these marshmellows, and call me on your smart phone after to reenter to let me know whether or not they're cooked :-)

Re:Just a wee bit dicey... (1)

confused one (671304) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986966)

They're not talking about something that requires high-reliability space hardened computers (like avionics). They're talking about cheap nano satellite sensor platforms.

Re:Just a wee bit dicey... (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987866)

"Excuse me, but when the astronauts sleep, they see flashes in their eyes caused by energetic particles colliding with the fluid in their eyes and emitting Cerenkov light cones. Forgive me, but that's pretty damn extreme."

Citation needed. Actually I've heard this myself, but the version I heard said it occured only in the van allen belts. I don't know if either claim is remotely true, though.

Re:Just a wee bit dicey... (1)

Genda (560240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987974)

You asked for it, you got it Toyota... Astronauts seeing flashes [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Just a wee bit dicey... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34988780)

Excuse me, but when the astronauts sleep, they see flashes in their eyes caused by energetic particles colliding with the fluid in their eyes and emitting Cerenkov light cones

[CITATION NEEDED]!!!!!!!!!!!!

If anyone is seeing any flashes, it is far more likely that they are generated IN THEIR BRAIN directly, than in the eyeballs. So please, point me to research that shows the flashes are generated in their eyeballs. kthnxby

How about a controlled experiment? (1)

iinventstuff (1888700) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986120)

To test the phone, they could do more controlled experimentation here on earth... Also, most of the components were derived from those tested for the space programs and the work that NASA has already done, so it would seem that they don't need to reinvent the wheel. See (http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/)

phones launch phones to support phones.... (1)

schlachter (862210) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986140)

Soon..... Phones will control the launch of Satellites. These Satellites will actually be Phones with large antenna and thrusters. These Phones will serve as comm satellites for Phones on the ground. It's Phones all the way down.

Um, Arduino? (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986248)

Like they didn't seem to want to try an Arduino? Pretty cheap, prety light, lots of I/O options, simple IDE, reasonable power consumption I think... There is some discussion that some Arduinos are comparable to phones in power usage.

Anyways, they are thinking of using phone chipsets, so some of the micro boards could also work. And lets also assume they won't be using phone radios, there's some savings there, but lots of other alternatives seem to be at least as good.

Besides, Arduino in space sounds a lot cooler. And it's already been done [makezine.com] , so we can razz the Brits.

Re:Um, Arduino? (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986658)

No need to single out a specific board like the Arduino series, which is little more than an off-the-shelf AVR microcontroller, voltage regulator, LED, and perhaps a USB interface.

Re:Um, Arduino? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34989758)

Arduino is about as useful for these jobs as an unmodified ARM will turn out to be, which is to say, not very. The Arduino is too slow; they're looking for faster solutions that are also cheaper than the exotic-substrate 386s through Pentiums they're using now.

If it had been an iphone ... (2)

hardtofindanick (1105361) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986282)

the article would have been titled "iPhones blast into space". It is an Android and suddenly we remember to use the term "mobile device".

Re:If it had been an iphone ... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987404)

That's because the iPhone isn't a mobile device - its an Ipod, a phone, and an Internet Communications device.

Or at least that's what a guy in a turtleneck told me.

NASA got burned on this, literally (4, Interesting)

DCFusor (1763438) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986300)

Let a bunch of ignorant college kids try and use COTS stuff in their smaller, faster, cheaper, better plans. Almost to a man, they didn't understand certain really important issues, as in -- things that work fine fanless in air burn up in a heartbeat in a good vacuum from their own power when the only way to lose heat is by radiation -- which doesn't remove much till things get very hot indeed. Even micropower opamp chips die in vacuum. After all, there are such things as one watt incandescent bulbs....that get white hot with one watt input, and some of them aren't even in a vacuum! Ok, spread that heat around a 1 watt cpu, which is bigger -- and it's still above the destruction temperature of a chip -- well above.

So, unless they customize the boards for conductive heat removal and some temp control extras, it ain't going to fly. It's been done and evidently the UK guys don't know about it (all too common these days) or don't have a clue what that problem is.

But if they couldn't just buy the parts and make/program their own, they're not smart enough to succeed anyway -- those other problems like bit-glitches caused by radiation and so on will kill them if they don't do a very robust software design with various safeguards and redundancies. Why be stuck with a cel phone circuit board when you could just buy the same parts and add the stuff you really need on the mission all on the same board?

Back in the day, I worked on some stuff that was going into birds. They made us take this class on "What works and doesn't work in space". It was killer enlightening about what the issues are. Some of it has been obviated by new tech -- for example "no electrolytic caps" -- we have ceramics now that serve fine and are probably in most all new tech. "no potentiometers" "absolute minimum connectors" and an entire other course about how things wind up cold welding together in vacuum and most lubes don't work (including surprisingly, graphite which requires an oxygen layer to be slippery). Things like the tempco monster when using dissimilar materials need extra thought so things don't simply warp or explode at big temperature swings as well.

So, NASA has been there, and done that, and even they forgot some of the lessons when they pissed off most of their real engineers and substituted young punk academics with no real world experience...

Here goes history rhyming again.

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986570)

I also imagine that consumer stuff has a wide spec margin, so that you may test several phones and they work, but another batch has their specs noticeably different in the areas that matter for operating in space. This spec difference doesn't matter on Earth, because they aren't being pushed near the limit. It's like overclocking CPUs; you test it a lot and it works fine at say 1.5 the rated speed, but then doesn't work on another batch or a later revision.

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (1)

Gunnut1124 (961311) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986580)

Please tell me you were shaking your cane and shouting for the neighbor kids to get off your lawn shortly before posting this. I rarely see something so obviously written by someone with a grudge against testing and "playing" with modern equipment...

Also,, who calls them "birds" anymore?

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (1)

mr1911 (1942298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986786)

Heat removal isn't the biggest problem in space. Radiation is a problem. All those little particles that the atmosphere filters for us does nasty things to ICs in space.

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34987546)

Maybe you missed the part in the TFA (which, frankly, appears shorter than your post) where they already tested to make sure the device would function just fine in a vacuum.

But no, keep on ranting. Being ageist and crude is a real tradition here at Slashdot.
Something tells me you were one of the "real engineers" replaced.

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34988116)

It's SSTL doing the work. They know their stuff pretty well.

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (2)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34989094)

Well, just like our economists forgetting the economics lessons of the past 80 to 100 years, now NASA is faced with budget cuts after the resulting spectacular economic failures. So, how does NASA respond? By apparently forgetting the engineering lessons of the past 80 to 100 years. Keyword apparently.

I've designed build space electronics, from launch vehicles to earth science instrumentation for low earth orbit, to weather and comm satellites for GEO and even cameras for planetary science missions, and I can tell you with certainty that the iPhone will not operate reliably at orbits much higher than ISS, and even there won't operate for very long. Take them to a very rad hard environment, like Jovian orbit, and they won't function at all. NASA knows this. And I doubt they've forgotten it. (Here is a good introduction on radiation effects [klabs.org] , and this is a very good site for diving deep into the topic [nasa.gov] .)

Rather than assuming that they're idiots, I suspect that either a) they have a very select subset of missions for which they're considering consumer grade mobile phones (e.g., short duration low-inclination LEO missions), or 2) they're intentionally proposing a noncompliant technology for a mission for a reason, such as demonstrating the impossibility of the mission for the proposed price, or perhaps simply in protest of budget cuts.

I'd put my money on 1) but would not be surprised if 2) were true. I've seen it before.

Re:NASA got burned on this, literally (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34989134)

i agree with all the vacuum created issues, but i often wonder about using radiation hardened(and ungodly expensive) chips even on low orbits. i mean commercial electronics work fine at e.g. ISS crew use, why could it not work in actual craft control systems? sort of raises the question, has anyone actually tried to? its all too easy to follow industry standards and burn money away if you have budget to spare. and honestly, cost is the only thing wrong with today's space tech, in this tech sector its like industrial revolution and invention of cheap mass production never happened

"backyard sapce mission" already doing this (1)

peter303 (12292) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986818)

About a dozen groups have hooked smart phones to weather balloons and gone to the "edge of space" i.e. taken photos of the earth's curvature from 30-some miles up. A smart phone has all the basically components in a small, light package. Not least is self-location for when it lands to retrieve the pictures. All the group need do is cobble together an App to tie the pieces together.

I am seeing smart phones used in student robot competitions and science fairs. The students can concentrate on algorithms instead of hardware then.

Re:"backyard sapce mission" already doing this (1)

bughunter (10093) | more than 3 years ago | (#34989200)

There's a difference between operating for 30 min at an altitude of 100mi and operating for 10 years at 23,000 miles altitude. I doubt NASA is proposing using Androids and iPhones for things much more demanding than weeklong shuttle missions, or maybe pushing the envelope to ISS deloyment for 90 days or so. Beyond that, the phones *will* reliably fail.

Google the phrase "total dose ionizing radiation" and poke around a bit, maybe also looking for the phrase "total dose hardness of bulk cmos" for fun. Then look up "single event effects in bulk cmos." There's a lot of info out there.

How would that be different than ATT service 2day? (2)

xkr (786629) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986882)

How would that be different than ATT service 2day?

Color me sceptical (2)

KZigurs (638781) | more than 3 years ago | (#34986890)

So, let's just summarize. They want to give control of (no matter how insignificant) chunks of hardware in space to stuff that:

- Is designed at best for 60-70*C temp range (+/- 30-40 usually)
- Is assembled planning for 1atm +/- 0.10atm ish.
- Has a projected design life of 36 months (or thereabouts, again)
- Is re-designed every 12-18 months leaving previous designs generally unsupported
- Is considered and counted to be field-updateable for any more complex implementation
- Is fab'd/assembled by the lowest bidder

Sure, why not! Also, let's hope that the failures will end up re-entering and buring out instead of sticking on some kind of weird trajectory contributing to the junk already out there.

Routerboards in space (1)

vaguestalker (1685122) | more than 3 years ago | (#34987520)

Wouldn't routerboards be more suited to these kind of extremes? Like Mikrotik or Ubiquity gear?

Rides aren't cheap, so payloads shouldn't be cheap (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34989508)

One important thing to consider: Orbital insertions of any kind aren't cheap or simple.... If you're getting a ride into orbit that's worth tens of thousands of dollars, you should consider not pinching too many pennies on the brains of whatever you're sending up. You can get away with a lot of stupid design stuff in LEO when you're at solar minimum, but wait till solar maximum or cross the radiation belts and you'll quickly find you've just wasted a very valuable ride up.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?