High-Temp Electronics For Venus Exploration, recent advances |
High-Temp Electronics For Venus Exploration, recent advances |
Mar 13 2013, 03:36 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 291 |
(MOD NOTE: Started a new topic for this discussion to continue. Please remember the 'no sci-fi engineering' provision of rule 1.9. Have fun!)
Also, since I'm thinking about surface operations on Venus, the state-of-the-art in high temperature electronics has advanced quite far in the past decade. Its now possible to buy off the shelf chips from vendors designed to operate at the 250-300 C range. Meanwhile basic functionality has been tested at and beyond the temperatures needed for long-term surface operations on Venus: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/SiC/ http://www.gizmag.com/extreme-silicon-carb...ctronics/16410/ http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/SiC/publicatio...Contact2010.pdf Another decade or so and a long-term Venus lander could be possible with (practically) off the shelf electronics! |
|
|
Jun 17 2013, 01:12 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 19-March 13 Member No.: 6897 |
Power draw is a huge issue, because you can't do CMOS. Memory draws a ton of power, so even if you can build a big chip, you would need a very large power source. Which is a pretty big problem on the surface of Venus, where very little light gets through, your cold end for a heat engine is already nearly as high as the hot end for MMRTG.
|
|
|
Jun 17 2013, 09:13 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 127 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 291 |
Doesn't seem to me that high temperature memory is that far behind IC's. As someone mentioned before, TI is selling an off-the-shelf flash memory unit that is rated up to 210 C currently. I've seen some research documents that refer up to 300 C memory units in lab tests being run now, so the OTS max temperature should keep pushing up over the next few years.
EDIT: and I now see this note by Raytheon that they are working on a SiC based CMOS rated at 450C. So why can't we do CMOS on Venus? This might be of interest - a report by Honeywell on the challenges (and solutions) for building 250 C rated ICs, that goes into memory solutions as well. -- IC related Bonus - found this paper describing the results of actual testing at 500C with a custom IC built by NASA. Think I missed this on my last review of papers on high temperature ICs. |
|
|
Jun 18 2013, 12:18 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 20 Joined: 19-March 13 Member No.: 6897 |
Doesn't seem to me that high temperature memory is that far behind IC's. As someone mentioned before, TI is selling an off-the-shelf flash memory unit that is rated up to 210 C currently. I've seen some research documents that refer up to 300 C memory units in lab tests being run now, so the OTS max temperature should keep pushing up over the next few years. The tech that works up to 250C is not usable to the ~500C needed for Venus (it /can't/ work, the tech simply stops producing gain at that point). The Raytheon CMOS SiC stuff is interesting, but a lot of this stuff has been "talked about" for a good couple decades without significant progress towards something actually usable. Goes on the list, though!EDIT: and I now see this note by Raytheon that they are working on a SiC based CMOS rated at 450C. So why can't we do CMOS on Venus? This might be of interest - a report by Honeywell on the challenges (and solutions) for building 250 C rated ICs, that goes into memory solutions as well. QUOTE IC related Bonus - found this paper describing the results of actual testing at 500C with a custom IC built by NASA. Think I missed this on my last review of papers on high temperature ICs. Ah, yes, Philip Neudeck... One of the people I've talked to on trying to see what will and won't work. This field is so small that a lot of the references are by the same people. Some people are really optimistic about getting a usable large-scale IC in a short time, others are quite pessimistic. The consensus currently is that memory is a really hard problem. You need Megabytes of memory, not just the 100 bits that might be doable in the next 5 years. (And Mike K, also one of the authors of that paper, is probably the most interesting person I've ever met at NASA. He's on my list of most favorite people ever.) And the question isn't about physical impossibility or not, but on state of the technology... If you want a mission that actually /happens/ and isn't a paper study, we can't be happy with a TRL of "well, physically it's possible." The people who decide whose mission to build will reject that every time. ...That said, prove me wrong! |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th September 2024 - 06:41 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |