| |||||||||||||
Questions that should be askedQuestions that should be askedPosted Feb 26, 2013 17:21 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: Questions that should be asked by man_ls Parent article: ABS: Android in space
Your arguments seem very contrived.
Pretty much everything sent to space is a one-off job. (there are exceptions like Iridium and GPS satellites, but they are rare).
And, as all the fully functional smartphones, TVs, base stations, laptops, etc etc etc all around you will indicate, tin whiskers are simply not a big deal.
You're really struggling to dismiss these peoples' hard work. Why? What's your motive?
(Log in to post comments)
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 17:37 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Please read carefully. The "one-off" argument was just a rebuttal of a previous commenter about one-off jobs being expensive and unreliable, and COTS products being preferable.All those devices you mention have a tendency to break apart after a few years for no reason, with smartphones the worst offenders. I just expect more from space exploration. This particular job looks like a high school research project, but whatever. It is cool, dude.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 17:40 UTC (Tue) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> And, as all the fully functional smartphones, TVs, base stations, laptops, etc etc etc all around you will indicate, tin whiskers are simply not a big deal.
Reading the Wikipedia page[1], tin whiskers which short out in a vacuum causes the tin to turn to plasma which can carry quite a few amps (100s) and can short out a lot of electronics.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 18:30 UTC (Tue) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
It might offends ones sense of perfection or a romantic image of the hardy space-farer who has advanced technology. Maybe this person read a lot of '50-'60's era Sci-Fi and had it color their perceptions of what is to be expected in the imminent, Utopic, future.
Just a set of random guesses. 8-)
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 18:41 UTC (Tue) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Hey, 50-60s era sci-fi is cool! But anyone with even a shallow knowledge of the technical accomplishments of the Apollo and Shuttle projects (along with the constraints of their respective ages) will yearn for something better. Call me nostalgic if you want, but XP SP3? AA batteries? Come on, seriously!
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 26, 2013 19:34 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
the shuttles were 'upgraded' to 486 class computers after the turn of the century.
If you wait for everything to be 'space rated', you end up running very old technology, which can end up being horribly inefficent.
I believe the AA batteries, and I do not expect that they are rechargeable
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 27, 2013 7:21 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]
There was an article in IEEE Spectrum a while ago about some group in the US that is trying to modularise satellites, and make it so components need not be custom-made, but "off the shelf" and plug together in standardised ways.
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 27, 2013 7:26 UTC (Wed) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
one thing to keep in mind with space equipment is that most of it is so weight sensitive that you can spend a lot of money optimizing the design to save a small amount of weight and come out ahead.
In many cases, your mass issue compounds, a heavier craft means it needs bigger thrusters, more fuel......
Questions that should be asked Posted Feb 27, 2013 10:03 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] It's only true if you send stuff to the Mars or Jupiter. To send 1kg to LEO you need about $4'000-$5'000 and to send 1kg to GEO you need $25'000-$30'000. That's if you use cheap "obsolete" Atlas, Dnepr, Proton, or similar modern replacements. Futuristic Space Shuttle was, indeed, 5-10 times more expensive, but that's not a problem anymore. At these prices easily achievable savings make sense, but if you need one fully engineer to work a year to save measly 1kg once then obviously it makes no sense at all.
|
|||||||||||||