Hubble Repairs Hindered By Antiquated Computer Systems

Andrew Moseman writes "Part of the trouble NASA is encountering while fixing the Hubble Space Telescope comes from the fact that it's been up there for nearly two decades, and therefore carries computer systems long outdated here on Earth. 'One of the main computers that the Goddard team has been struggling with during the repair attempts runs on an Intel 486 chip, the height of 1989 technology.' Many of NASA's long-running missions rely on antiquated systems — the Voyager probes each have about 32k of memory — but the scientists say they can manage."

Memory

[Duct Tape Jedi (802164)]

well if the Hubble has at least 640k memory it should be fine. . . .right?

640K

[bobbonomo (997543)]

Sure! How can anyone use more than even 64K (was the saying when the 8086 came out).

Re:Memory

[camperdave (969942)]

It's not that. They're linked up, but all they are seeing on the screen is:


C:\>_

and for some reason the mouse doesn't move.

Hardly that antiquated

[telchine (719345)]

Maybe I'm just getting old, but a 486 doesn't seem all that big a deal to me. I mean it's not as if it's a completely different architecture to that in use today.

You know you are getting old...

[by Anonymous Coward]

...when you think Hubble is an astronomer.

I read the headline and thought there were complications during poor Edwin's double knee replacement.

Re:You know you are getting old...

[cheater512 (783349)]

Windows has detected a new piece of hardware:

Hubble Telescope

Would you like to try and find the driver on Windows Update?

Re:Hardly that antiquated

[x2A (858210)]

Hubble's not gonna be wasting it's precious cpu time on running calculations for scientists on earth; they can do that themselves here on much faster processors, rather than divide up processor time onboard a satellite. Hubble will, however, need processing power for alignment; controlling rocket burns to get it pointing the right way, controlling motors to position mirrors, that kinda stuff, which doesn't need huge amounts of processing power. Just decent, realtime, predictable core + software, without things like fdiv bugs, or huge amounts of heat that pentiums+ give off.

Re:Hardly that antiquated

[evilviper (135110)]

Anything they can process onboard or compress better for sending back down to us would cut down on things that are probably a lot more scarce like bandwidth (if not directly, then the power to operate the antenna probably draws more than the processor does).

That's really not the case. Being so close to the earth, Hubble can broadcast with tiny amounts of power (far less than to run a CPU) and NASA's gigantic 65 meter dishes can pick up the faint signal very easily. Radio power consumption becomes a notable issue only with substantial distances from the earth, as it has with Voyager I/II.

Bandwidth is certainly not scarce for such applications, this is very low power, highly directional, line-of-sight communications...

Re:CPU Constrained?

[x2A (858210)]

"PNG is somewhat better than TIFF last time I checked"

Most people learn at quite a young age that the word 'better' doesn't really mean anything on its own. Better at what? Better at supporting non-RGB colour spaces? Better at supporting RGB with more than 8bits per colour, or even floating point values? Storing multiple images in a single file? No, png supportings none of these things that tiff does. If you're creating computer graphics for UI's, websites etc, png is probably a better choice, as that's more what it's designed for, but there are many other uses for storing images outside of this scope that tiff fits much better than png. As far as compression's concerned, PNG supports DEFLATE, which existed before PNG did, and the same with TIFF and its supported LZW compression (not that there's anything stopping you compressing either with either).

To sum up: better at what?

The problem isn't the actual i486 chip

[by Anonymous Coward]

No manufacturer makes the turbo buttons that must be disengaged so Hubble can focus properly.

I feel their pain

[TheModelEskimo (968202)]

I sent my Amiga 500 into orbit in 2001 using a homemade trebuchet (granted, quite a large one) and a very high mountain. It broadcasts the Pinball Dreams high score list every two hours on the hour. The problem is, the last time I went up to do some improvements (long story) I had forgotten a few vital 68000 assembler directives, so I was unable to make the transition from antiquated late-80s desktop computer to cutting-edge ASAT weapon. Too bad, now the 10kT warhead I attached to it is probably just sitting there, twiddling its sub-critical materials.

Re:I feel their pain

[symes (835608)]

I see this has been modded funny - but there is a v.salient issue here. Once space-based weaponry is up there there'll be little option for critical upgrades...

Re:I feel their pain

[alchemist68 (550641)]

I'll donate my Timex/Sinclair TS 1000 (4MHz Zilog Z80A) with 2K RAM & 16K RAM pack, cassette recorder, cables, and TV switch box, plus it runs on 9V DC!

I'll tell ya, I wouldn't mind unloading this thing, it's a bitch loading and saving my CV from/to cassette these days - it's difficult to find cassettes! It takes 15 minutes to load the word processor I found in COMPUTE magazine back in 1982, another 15 minutes to load/save the CV, AND, it's even more fun printing to the Timex/Sinclair 2040 roller tape thermal printer, but it makes a really great server since it can't be hacked, and moreover, it uses very little energy! I just creatively tape two rolls of thermal paper on a 8.5" x 11" paper and make a Zerox of the CV - fools most experts into thinking I did this with MS Office or Open Office! When they here how I did everything, I've cinched the JOB!

I still program in assembler code! Do you?

Hello, Dark Star?

[hax4bux (209237)]

No TP for you! Budget problems...

Voyager

[lelitsch (31136)]

Many of NASA's long-running missions rely on antiquated systems -- the Voyager probes each have about 32k of memory -- but the scientists say they can manage."

It would be nice if the submitter would add a proposed remedy, like simply sending a service probe out to add some more RAM.

Oh, wait.

Well, I guess when they send a space probe out into the furthest reaches of the solar system, most scientists would expect that they will have to deal with whatever hardware was on board at the time of the launch for the duration of the mission.

Re:

[ceoyoyo (59147)]

32k is a decent chunk to a decent embedded programmer.

The kids these days.

amazing what can be done

[by Anonymous Coward]

in such a small space by a good programmer. Most systems today are so encumbered by having been built by toolkits built on toolkits built on metalanguages ad nauseum that a simple "hello world" program now can run hundreds of K of memory.

My compliments to the programmers who still know how to get the most out of the little resources they're working with on these scientific probes.

"There really is no need to upgrade it."

[againjj (1132651)]

I love the end of the article:

"It's really reliable," she said. "There really is no need to upgrade it."

I wish more people understood that.

Send a Repair and Replacement Team

[reallocate (142797)]

It's no news that Hubble is operating with technology that dates from the era of its launch.

If you want machines in space to use current tech, then you need to send people with uptodate hardware.

Hint, hint.

486 is not that old.

[TerranFury (726743)]

This is a bullshit article. Unfortunately, that has become the norm for Popular Mechanics.

The Intel 486 is hardly some arcane CPU that's so old that nobody knows how to program it. Anybody who can write assembly for modern PCs can write assembly for the 486. And anybody who wants to write in a higher-level language can -- because all the 486 development tools are still easily available.

If you read the article, you'll find that it presents no evidence whatsoever for its assertion that the Hubble's use of a 486 makes it harder to repair. In fact, it reads more like, "The Hubble has a 486, and damn that seems outdated to me! Maybe that's why it's so hard to fix!" Really, that's about the level of the 'logical' argument that you'll find in the article.

Space rated.

[bigattichouse (527527)]

486 was officially the only space-rated hardware for a very long time. The problem is that when you create a smaller transistor, it becomes far more sensitive to ionizing radiation... the older the die, the larger - and thus less likely to be effected by radiation. More "modern" processors require more shielding.

Re:Upgrade

[talcite (1258586)]

They need to have the chips hardened for radiation. I'm not sure what the process entails, but they don't seem to do it with chips younger than 10 years or so. /. did a pretty good article on this awhile back I think.

Re:

[Original Replica (908688)]

They need to have the chips hardened for radiation. I'm not sure what the process entails

I would hope it involves putting the everything in a radiation shielded box. I could see how smaller chip architectures might be more susceptible to radiation, but a decade is enough time to figure that out and use exterior shielding instead of hardening. Sure that might be much more difficult, but if you can't handle difficult don't work at NASA. Of course with a Hubble sized budget, there is no excuse for not havin

Re:Upgrade

[talcite (1258586)]

I actually don't think you can realistically shield effectively against some types of high energy particles. Nuclear reactors use 6 ft of concrete to shield against neutrons. There's higher energy particles than neutrons in space. I'm sure that external shielding plays a large role in it, but there's probably more to it. The wikipedia article on radiation hardening is actually very good. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Radiation_hardening&oldid=235697687 [wikipedia.org]

Re:Upgrade

[Rocketship Underpant (804162)]

One of the reasons particles like neutrons are hard to stop is that they have no charge and don't react with the electromagnetic fields that bind matter together. You basically need a collision between the neutron and an atomic nucleus to stop it.

A particle that doesn't interact electromagnetically, however, is (if I'm not mistaken) less likely to interfere with electronic equipment. Which is not to say hard-to-stop radiation like neutron radiation does no damage at all, but I'd be curious to know whether it's a concern at all for satellites.

Re:

[negRo_slim (636783)]

I'm just going to be an ass and jump in on this thread here...

They need to have the chips hardened for radiation. I'm not sure what the process entails

I think we went over this not to long ago with one of the Mars craft, or we were it was in the thread about the dangers of outsourcing DoD hardware? (or was that digg..) Regardless, it's generally just tech a few years older that's proven itself without major flaws... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening#Radiation-hardening_techniques [wikipedia.org] http://history.nasa.gov/computers/Part1.html [nasa.gov] And of course if your in the market for such kit... w

Re:

[RockDoctor (15477)]

There are much better neutron shields, but they are very exotic and expensive. Borated Polyethylene, hafnium, cadmium or any other material with large numbers of hydrogen atoms present, water being one of the better ones.

Definitely, the point being that you get the most scattering in collisions between objects of near equal mass. The closest mass neutral particle to a neutron is a hydrogen atom (with it's approximately 1 electron associated with one proton), and so the important oil-well petrophysical measu

Re:Upgrade

[peragrin (659227)]

at 10,000 a pound to launch the shuttle, weight reduction is most important. sending up lead computer cases because hardening a processor is hard is not an option when plastic weighs several pounds less.

Also up until 3-4 years ago the hubble was going to be shut down in the next year or two and was only extended later. Unlike the mars rovers the hubble's life won't magical extend.

Re:

[geekoid (135745)]

"...decade is enough time to figure that out and use exterior shielding instead of hardening. "

It's a fallacy to assume technology can solve every problem, or that solving it a specific way can be 'figured out'.

Re:Upgrade

[Hal_Porter (817932)]

Can't they just remodulate the shield harmonics or reverse the polarity of the neutron flow or something?

Re:Upgrade

[fireman sam (662213)]

Good God man, if we do that, we could turn all matter into doesn't matter, then nobody will give a fuck.

Re:Upgrade

[x2A (858210)]

Why bother with heavy shielding when you can just make the transistors big enough to not be flippable by single stray particals? Thick shielding might prevent 99.999% of dangerous bit flipping radiation from getting through, but what about that last tiny bit, you're going to need extra circuitry to detect errors in the processors circuitry... and everything starts getting more complicated, and you end up back where you started. In space, simpler is better.

Re:Upgrade

[evanbd (210358)]

Actually, some sorts of shielding make things worse. Moderate amounts of shielding just end up providing targets for the really high energy particles, which releases a big cloud of moderate energy particles on impact. The secondary radiation is both more abundant and more likely to interact with the stuff on the inside, and so causes a bigger problem. For space applications, there are intermediate amounts of shielding that will actually *increase* the total dose. (This is the case for cosmic rays, not solar flares; the latter can be fairly effectively shielded against, but is frequently less of a concern.) If you're not willing to put *large* amounts of mass around the thing to be shielded, it's often impossible to improve things all that much.

Hardening often consists of simple changes that are nonetheless expensive because they involve changes to the whole production line -- things like rating all the transistors for a noticeably higher voltage, to reduce the likelihood of a radiation-induced latchup event. As chip voltages get lower, this gets harder. Other changes include things like using isotopically pure boron in your dopants -- boron comes in two common isotopes, 10B and 11B. 11B is relatively immune to cosmic radiation, but 10B will fision when hit -- releasing secondary ionizing particles that cause a much greater problem than the cosmic ray by itself would. So rad-hard chips end up made with (expensive) depleted boron.

Combine these, and you see why it's difficult to find a decent selection of rad-hard chips, and also why an up-to-date radiation hardened CPU can cost over $100k each -- and also why you nonetheless need them, and can't really substitute anything short of a few tons of shielding.

Re:Upgrade

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

What you want may well be impossible. There are no magical materials right now to do what you want. Cosmic rays in the range TeV can't be stopped with a box that can be affordably launched, much less fit into the satellite. It's easier to use chips that are designed to handle them.

NASA already has a backup computer, on which are two independent circuits to do the same thing. Side "B" that is on the Hubble right now is handling things right now, after side "A" quit working.

NASA is putting the last of their spare parts on the Hubble right now, after which, there are no more short of restarting production, which isn't going to happen affordably. They made a lot of replacement parts which were gradually used as there were servicing missions.

Re:Upgrade

[PeterBrett (780946)]

Why use a heavy metal box to stop the cosmic rays or solar flare protons? They are both positively charged. Just put a positive charge around the computer box, and negative charge around a few "lightning rods" a few feet away and let magnetic forces do the rest. You don't have to stop the high energy particles, you just have to convince them to miss the few square inches of delicate electronics. Launch weight radiation shielding is something that NASA is going to have to tackle soon enough anyway if we ever want to leave our magnetosphere for more than about a week. Why not test it on a modern Hubble CPU, while keeping the remaining legacy chip as a back up?

Young man, in this forum we respect the laws of physics.

Go and find out how strong a magnetic field is required to deflect a proton with 1GeV of kinetic energy by 1 cm over a distance of, say, 2 m. Since you're obviously technically literate, that shouldn't be too difficult.

Hint: the answer is, "An impractically strong field is required, by a couple of orders of magnitude." Ever wondered why CERN use helium-cooled magnets which way tens of tons in their beamline?

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister (740220)]

External shielding is often a bad idea for space hardware. The shielding is heavy (as it must be to stop particles), and itself becomes radio-active over time as it is exposed to wonderful effects like gamma rays. We get this free shielding of miles of atmosphere, here on Earth, and we get even more shielding from solar radiation half of the day. (The technical term for this is 'night-time'). That Earth shielding also gets rid of a lot of the more intense interstellar radiation as well.

You can't replace tha

As If....

[SageMusings (463344)]

It's common knowledge 486s (and their variants) were pulled from the classified wreckage at Roswell NM earlier last century. Trust me, they've had plenty of time to work with those babies.

Glad I could help clarify that.

Re:Upgrade

[Golddess (1361003)]

I would imagine it's a little more difficult than simply popping out the CPU and putting in a new one. If you were tasked with upgrading a 486 here on Earth, how many components do you think you'd be able to recycle into the new machine? You'd end up replacing the whole thing, maybe keeping the HDD around just long enough to get your data off it.

Re:

[Ironsides (739422)]

I'd keep um... Nothing. I wouldn't even bother with the case. Everything is using ISA cards, CD-ROMs had to be supported through the Sound Blaster Sound Cards and the Power Supply is outdated for the connections to the motherboard. (I'm using a semi-working 486 I have for reference for this)

Re:

[symes (835608)]

I'd imagine you are correct - but it does raise the issue of whether future space-tech could be designed to be upgraded. It's a pretty trivial task to swap components in PCs these days - why not have telescopes, etc., of the future more plug and play? I could almost imagine an automated service vehicle carrying out an upgrade.

Re:Upgrade

[timeOday (582209)]

Why *should* it be upgraded? I don't bother upgrading the microprocessor in my thermostat, it seems to work fine.

Re:Upgrade

[killmofasta (460565)]

Actually, the P5 Over drives had the FOOF bug. You need "Reliable" type tech.

You do not need a significant increase in computational power. You need to increase reliability. If your OS goes bad, just re-read the whole thing from ROM. If a large portion of the program/OS is in rom, you dont need a lot of ram, just to store variables.

Just how smart do you think a microwave's CPU is?

Re:

[CaptainPatent (1087643)]

On one hand the hardware is old and could probably use a revamp... on the other hand we did miss a few major bullets.

After all, NASA could have decided to run Windows ME [pcworld.com] with an Nvidia graphics card [theinquirer.net] with an IBM Deskstar 75GXP [pcworld.com]

Re:Upgrade

[compro01 (777531)]

It takes several years to develop a radiation hardened version of circuits, in addition to being very expensive. About the most modern such processor is based on the PowerPC 750, aka Apple's G3.

Also, as far as I understand it, processors using smaller processes are much more difficult to harden, which significantly limits modernization.

Re:

[ixnaay (662250)]

Most rad hardened CPUs are RISC (powerPC, SPARC), there are very few options for x86 based rad hardened CPUs. Mil-spec wise Intel is doing well with their newer stuff (dual-core, etc.), but none of it has made it to the rad hardened world yet. The RAD750 [baesystems.com] is pretty much 'state of art', running at 166MHz.

Replacing an old 486 with one of these would require rewriting / compiling all the code running on them. Probably not enough of a performance gain in relation to the cost / risk of basically rewriting the

Re:Upgrade

[Darth_brooks (180756)]

It's already running on an upgrade. The 486 was installed in 1999 as part of STS-103.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope#Servicing_Mission_3A [wikipedia.org]

IIRC, the 486 was chosen specifically for the physical size of the data paths? Or the dies that cast the chips themselves? Either way, they were large enough that passing radation would be less likely to corrupt data that it would on the newer, smaller pentium based chips.

Re:Upgrade

[jacobsm (661831)]

A quote from the famous "Real programmers don't use Pascal" article written in 1983. Some of the most awesome Real Programmers of all work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. Many of them know the entire operating system of the Pioneer and Voyager spacecraft by heart. With a combination of large ground-based Fortran programs and small spacecraft-based assembly language programs, they are able to do incredible feats of navigation and improvisation-- hitting ten-kilometer wide windows at Saturn after six years in space, repairing or bypassing damaged sensor platforms, radios, and batteries. Allegedly, one Real Programmer managed to tuck a pattern matching program into a few hundred bytes of unused memory in a Voyager spacecraft that searched for, located, and photographed a new moon of Jupiter. The current plan for the Galileo spacecraft is to use a gravity assist trajectory past Mars on the way to Jupiter. This trajectory passes within 80 +/- 3 kilometers of the surface of Mars. Nobody is going to trust a Pascal program (or Pascal programmer) for navigation to these tolerances. If you have never read it, it's still a great read (at least for us old-timers). http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/real.programmers.html [pbm.com]

Re:

[Crazy Taco (1083423)]

Isn't it about time the hardware gets an upgrade?

From reading the article, it didn't sound like they could even do upgrades, even if they wanted to (although I suppose they probably could salvage the mirror and build a new system around it). That actually surprises me a bit, since they knew this would be a long running mission and it is within range to be worked on. I know these days as a computer engineer, my bosses are always telling me to design for the future with upgrades in mind, but maybe that wasn't

Re:

[Ironsides (739422)]

I'm willing to bet the algorithm timing was based on how long it took instructions to execute and not an outside clock. In other words, a change in the execution time, not just the clock speed, will mess up the software.

Re:

[ciscoguy01 (635963)]

The US government had a standing order to chip brokers for all the 8087 math coprocessors that could be had. They are used in some military radar units and there is no replacement available.