The thread for space cadets!

[hobbsyoyo]

Right and then there are all the other bits and bobs which go into electronic hardware like capacitors, resistors, transistors, diodes, etc., etc.

I wonder how much you could 'downgrade' and get away with it. What I mean is that for the applications we're talking about, modern consumer electronics are waaaay more powerful than the task at hand. Therefore you could do with slower, heavier and larger electronics. With that being the case, I wonder if it is possible to create the components you need using simpler techniques and materials than are used in modern consumer electronics?

Again, I don't know much about electrical manufacturing so maybe this is a stupid suggestion on the face of it. Maybe even creating the simplest of bits and bobs is just an inherently difficult process.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

To this day, even in the most cutting edge space R&D labs the electronics used in space hardware are not really that fast and cutting edge compared to what's available in the commercial world. In the very beginning, space hardware used the most advanced electronics because they were having to invent it just to satisfy their own needs. Then in the 80's that flipped in that what was available off the shelf was sufficient for purpose. At that point design firms became conservative as they didn't want to break their billion dollar satellites using untested, cutting-edge stuff from the commercial world.

At that point the space world fell one, two, three or four generations behind and are only now beginning to catch back up as newer, smaller firms have popped up that aren't tied to legacy architectures.

Taking this concept even further - I wonder how much you could roll back technologically-speaking in order to simplify manufacturing such that you could more easily get to a self-sufficient status for a Martian colony.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

Well, a really self-sufficient colony would need the whole industrial system we have here at Earth but at a smaller size, from heavy mining machinery, chemical plants and blast smelters to get the basic products from martian minerals to all the manufactures and tools to produce of all the devices and components you need to keep said basic industry and everything else in the middle working. Once you get that, you could have the basics metals, plastics and components to build PCBs or even integrated circuits. In any case such last step would be the easy part i guess.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The difference between integrated circuits and circuit boards, from a manufacturing standpoint, is automation. If I put all the control functions for a set of equipment into a single chip that chip will be produced in a highly automated process. If I put those same functions on a circuit board covered with discreet components there will be laborers placing those components with their hands who will have to be paid. It doesn't take all that many units for the higher development costs of the integrated circuit to be overcome in labor savings. Space offers a lot more opportunity for "one offs," where discreet component technology is more cost effective. Same can be said in some military applications. If you are knocking out a few thousand jet aircraft integrated circuits are the way to go. For shipboard systems that only apply to ten aircraft carriers, or maybe twenty, not so much.

 

[Broken_Erika]

Martian colonies computer network. Powered by Zilog Z80's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zilog_Z80

 

[Cutlass]

To this day, even in the most cutting edge space R&D labs the electronics used in space hardware are not really that fast and cutting edge compared to what's available in the commercial world. In the very beginning, space hardware used the most advanced electronics because they were having to invent it just to satisfy their own needs. Then in the 80's that flipped in that what was available off the shelf was sufficient for purpose. At that point design firms became conservative as they didn't want to break their billion dollar satellites using untested, cutting-edge stuff from the commercial world.

At that point the space world fell one, two, three or four generations behind and are only now beginning to catch back up as newer, smaller firms have popped up that aren't tied to legacy architectures.

Taking this concept even further - I wonder how much you could roll back technologically-speaking in order to simplify manufacturing such that you could more easily get to a self-sufficient status for a Martian colony.

In the book series 1632 by Eric Flint, he used the concept of 'gearing down'. They had more advanced technology, but rather that trying to keep it up, they instead went with what they thought was more sustainable. I've read a lot of books where they colonized other worlds. But I've also read histories where they colonized parts of this world. What the reality had that the fiction sometimes did and sometimes didn't have was the loss of skills. This often came from a very high death rate. This is why I've said in the past that a successful colonization effort would need 10s of 1000s of first gen colonists.

If you colonize a world with a couple 100 of the world's leading specialists and greatest young minds, what happens to that knowledge when half of them are dead in the first couple of years? Now of course all the science in the world at the time of launch is recorded for them. But what happens when those computers break down? How many people do you need to support the education of a neurosurgeon?

These are issues that aren't really thought through when most people think of colonizing expeditions.

 

[uppi]

Right and then there are all the other bits and bobs which go into electronic hardware like capacitors, resistors, transistors, diodes, etc., etc.

I wonder how much you could 'downgrade' and get away with it. What I mean is that for the applications we're talking about, modern consumer electronics are waaaay more powerful than the task at hand. Therefore you could do with slower, heavier and larger electronics. With that being the case, I wonder if it is possible to create the components you need using simpler techniques and materials than are used in modern consumer electronics?

Again, I don't know much about electrical manufacturing so maybe this is a stupid suggestion on the face of it. Maybe even creating the simplest of bits and bobs is just an inherently difficult process.

It certainly would make sense not to set up a state-of-the-art electronics manufacturing, but to build a simpler setup. I don't think you should go back to old techniques, because a lot of knowledge has been accumulated since then, which you don't need to throw away, just because you would be on Mars. Instead it would be good to have a good look at the current state of electronics manufacturing and to find the simplest way to produce sufficiently advanced electronics with the resources that the colony has access to. The end result would be most likely a process that would never be used in production on Earth, but would be easier to set up on Mars. But still, even for the simplified process, you would need fairly advanced lasers, optics and chemistry with their respective supply chains.

How far you could reduce the complexity would depend on the applications. There would be many, where even a fairly simple circuit would do the job, but there will be some that would include more advanced algorithms, which need a decent amount of computing power. For example, there is a lot of computer simulation involved in designing modern electronics. If you could run this on Earth servers, it would be fine, but if you want to be self-sufficient to the point where the Martian colony could produce electronics without the help of Earth, you would need hardware capable of doing these simulations.

Finally, the trade off between complexity and power depends on how much you value self-sufficiency. If you decide to rely on electronics imported on earth for a while, you would want small and lightweight electronics, because these would be cheaper to ship to Mars. If you want to manufacture them locally, you would want to go with bigger and heavier electronics, because these would be easier to manufacture.

The difference between integrated circuits and circuit boards, from a manufacturing standpoint, is automation. If I put all the control functions for a set of equipment into a single chip that chip will be produced in a highly automated process. If I put those same functions on a circuit board covered with discreet components there will be laborers placing those components with their hands who will have to be paid. It doesn't take all that many units for the higher development costs of the integrated circuit to be overcome in labor savings. Space offers a lot more opportunity for "one offs," where discreet component technology is more cost effective. Same can be said in some military applications. If you are knocking out a few thousand jet aircraft integrated circuits are the way to go. For shipboard systems that only apply to ten aircraft carriers, or maybe twenty, not so much.

A circuit without any integrated circuits is not going to do much. Even for the simplest stuff, you want at least some integrated circuits. The trade-off between manufacturing costs which you mention is true on Earth, where you have the opportunity to order different integrated circuits and solder them together or design a new integrated circuit. On Mars, however, you would not have the opportunity to just order a specialized integrated circuit. Instead you would want to have only a few designs, which you can stock in large number. In my opinion, the way to go would be to chose integrated circuits that can be used for many purposes, even if they are overkill for most of them. Since the main cost factor will be shipment, it would matter much if the IC costs a few dollars more if it has many more applications. I would most likely go for mass FPGAs, which could then be programmed locally into any circuit you need (within limits of the FPGA, of course).

 

[Timsup2nothin]

A circuit without any integrated circuits is not going to do much.

Hmmmm. We managed to operate an entire nuclear powered submarine without any integrated circuits, so I guess this depends on your definition of "not going to do much." Heck, we had significant reactor control systems that worked just fine without transistors.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Hmmmm. We managed to operate an entire nuclear powered submarine without any integrated circuits, so I guess this depends on your definition of "not going to do much." Heck, we had significant reactor control systems that worked just fine without transistors.

The old battleships didn't even bother going digital for their gun targeting.
https://arstechnica.com/information...-mechanical-analog-computers-ruled-the-waves/

So why did the Navy never follow through with digitizing the battleship’s big guns? I asked retired Navy Captain David Boslaugh, former director of the Navy Tactical Embedded Computer Program Office, that question. And if anyone would know, it's Boslaugh. He played a role in the development of the Navy Tactical Data System—the forerunner to today’s Aegis systems, the mother of all digital sensor and fire control systems.

“At one time, my office was asked to do a study regarding upgrading the Iowa-class battleship fire control systems from analog to digital computers,” Boslaugh replied. “We found that digitizing the computer would improve neither the reliability nor the accuracy of the system and recommended, ‘Don't bother.’” Even without digital computers, the Iowa could fire 2,700-pound “dumb” shells nearly 30 miles inland with deadly accuracy, within a circle of probable error of around 80 meters. Some of its shells had circles of destruction larger than that.

Just how can a box of gears, cams, racks, and pins handle ballistics calculations based on differential equations with dozens of variables in real time? How does it manage to put a hunk of metal weighing as much as a Volkswagen Beetle on top of a target over the horizon in the first place? And how did this metal and grease out-calculate digital systems for so long? Let's start with a little bit of a history on battleship ballistics—complete with vintage Navy training films to show precisely how mechanical analog computing works.

To see a video of a box of gears, cams, racks, and pins solving calculus problems in real-time, click on this video from the USA Navy 1953!

More like a mechanical calculator than a computer, but 12:35 and 28:05 are pretty sweet.

 

[uppi]

Hmmmm. We managed to operate an entire nuclear powered submarine without any integrated circuits, so I guess this depends on your definition of "not going to do much." Heck, we had significant reactor control systems that worked just fine without transistors.

I guess that is one of the reasons why you needed 100+ people to operate it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess that is one of the reasons why you needed 100+ people to operate it.

The biggest factor in that is actually 24/7 operation. You need at least three full shifts of staff on board, but at any given time it really only takes about forty and most of those are just muscle.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Landspace - which bills itself as the Chinese SpaceX - attempted their first orbital launch this morning and failed. This rocket was a 3-stage solid fueled rocket with a small payload capacity. They are working a much bigger liquid Methane fueled rocket as well. The payload for this launch was a 30 kg science experiment/teaching aid for one of the major Chinese broadcasters. It is unclear if this solid-fueled booster will be launched again as it was built with major components from another company which cut ties with Landspace earlier this year. There are now at least three new Chinese start ups attempting to become the next SpaceX which is pretty awesome for them.

China just last year liberalized the rules for investing/operating in the commercial launch vehicle sector. Time will tell if the low labor costs that Chinese industries enjoy will allow them to have sufficient price advantage to overcome the stringent sanctions that the US has imposed on this sector of the Chinese economy. Right now American companies can have no business there, NASA can sign no agreements and foreign satellite builders must also either comply with these rules and freeze China out of the market or else not source a single component from the US. Given the massive material advantages and supply chains of the US space component market, most companies voluntarily comply with these restrictions. They can't afford to cross the US on this issue and choose their side in the ongoing dispute.



https://spacenews.com/landspace-fails-to-reach-orbit-with-milestone-private-chinese-launch/

 

[uppi]

China just last year liberalized the rules for investing/operating in the commercial launch vehicle sector. Time will tell if the low labor costs that Chinese industries enjoy will allow them to have sufficient price advantage to overcome the stringent sanctions that the US has imposed on this sector of the Chinese economy.

In the short term this will certainly slow them down. In the long term, China has enough of an industrial base, domestic demand, and national interest to sustain their own space industry. Being forced to create most of the supply chain domestically may have its advantages in the future.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

In the short term this will certainly slow them down. In the long term, China has enough of an industrial base, domestic demand, and national interest to sustain their own space industry. Being forced to create most of the supply chain domestically may have its advantages in the future.

The law has the effect of forcing the Chinese to modernize their satellite industry. Since they can't access US parts they have to invent their own which means the US is giving China the impetus it needs to invest in their own businesses and technologies.

Before the Chinese could only really launch the satellites built by other nations - they had launch vehicles but their native satellite manufacturing abilities were subpar at best. That situation will quickly change in large part due to the sanctions.

To be fair, however, it's not as if the sanctions were unprovoked. The Chinese stole launch vehicle and satellite technologies from the western companies that used them for launches. They had a shot at the market and blew it.

 

[red_elk]

Video of the accident from Roscosmos

1:24 - Looks like one of the boosters (left one on the screen) failed to separate properly.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Beat me by a minute! Just watched and copied the link myself. Thanks @red_elk for sharing!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Today marks 18 years of continuous human occupation of outer space. It looks like the problem that caused the Soyuz failure is both obvious and easily fixable though it means currently built Soyuz rockets will need disassembly to inspect them which invites further accidents. However, this should mean Soyuz is going to return to manned flight soon which lessens the likelihood we'll break this winning streak for space occupation.

Which is great because the American companies are not doing so great at keeping to schedules to give the US a manned space launch capability. A huge part of that problem was Congress's fault as they intentionally starved the manned program of funds to hurt Obama. At this point though they're getting the funds they need and are partially to blame for further schedule slips. NASA itself takes up the balance of blame as the game of risk theater they like to play actively hurts space exploration efforts.

What I mean by risk theater is that NASA likes to take phantom (or at least wildly overblown) risks and write obnoxious rules which require massive amounts of effort to fix. Moreover, the efforts to meet these rules often create more problems than they fix. To carry over an example from the space force thread, the mirror problem that the Hubble Space Telescope had was entirely caused by NASA.

To build the primary mirror for Hubble, NASA contracted with the world's leading provider of these types of optics. However, NASA decided that the equipment this company used to make the mirrors wasn't good enough because NASA itself didn't build it. So they mandated that this company build new equipment that NASA designed.

Problem was that this new equipment was incorrectly calibrated and ground the mirrors incorrectly. Ironically, the old equipment was used in parallel to check the work of the new equipment and that old equipment very clearly indicated that the mirror was ground down incorrectly. NASA knew this and decided to ignore it because clearly they know best and their own work couldn't be wrong.

So Hubble launched with a near-sighted mirror and spent a few years and many millions of dollars developing and launching a corrective lens to fix the issue that they themselves caused. That type of scenario is playing out over and over again in the SLS and Commercial Crew programs.

I love NASA but sometimes it gets in its own way.

For those that are interested, The Space Force thread contains an anecdote on a lesser-known problem with the Hubble Space Telescope. In this instance the problem wasn't caused by NASA and could have been avoided had the intelligence community been a little more proactive with NASA as they developed Hubble which was based on Keyhole spy satellites.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hey @hobbsyoyo, what do you think of this thing?

The theory is based on the object's "excess acceleration," or its unexpected boost in speed as it traveled through and ultimately out of our solar system in January 2018.

Probably got discussed at length back in January, but these Harvard guys are still thinking about it...and they are Harvard guys and not just crackpots...at least in theory.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well it is certainly plausible and I lamented at the time we lacked the ability to go find out for ourselves with a probe. Unfortunately the article doesn't give enough detail to make a serious assessment of the claims. It also fails to link to the journal publication as well. It links to the journal's website but not the paper in question and it doesn't give the paper's title to search for it (unless I missed it). Unfortunately I have to go to work and can't go digging on google for it.

 

[Broken_Erika]

...and they are Harvard guys and not just crackpots...at least in theory.

Harvard Crackpots?

Anyways..

Metop weather satellite prepares for lift-off

Europe is about to put a front-line weather satellite in orbit that has components which are over a decade old.

The Metop-C spacecraft is due to launch from French Guiana late on Tuesday local time, and will circle the globe, gathering data that will feed into daily forecasts.

The satellite was procured at the same time as its two predecessors, but was then stored for later use.

A British instrument onboard was manufactured 17 years ago.

The Microwave Humidity Sounder (MHS) will detect water in the atmosphere - everything from fog to the heavy rain inside a hurricane.

Europe's meteorological agencies say they have no qualms about Metop-C's capabilities.

The spacecraft has routinely been pulled out of hibernation and its systems checked to see they are still functional.

The polar-orbiting Earth observer is fully expected to carry through its duties until the next-generation of technologies take over early next decade, states Dr Dieter Klaes from Eumetsat, the intergovernmental organisation that operates European weather satellites.

"Metop-C was regularly tested. Whenever these satellites have been in storage, there is a health review," he told BBC News.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46113605