[X] My Assistant

[Rob Pinnegar]

Since the Neptune Orbiter thread has started to veer into talking about a Uranus orbiter as well, it seemed like a good idea to start a topic for Uranus.

[brellis]

requirements for planetary missions tend to increase & specialize over time as we build on the results of previous missions, complicated by the fact that technology changes rapidly. This applies even to the bus, not just the payload. Therefore, mass-producing modular "COTS" spacecraft for planetary missions just isn't feasible. (I know; I think it sucks, too!)

It isn't "mass-producing". It's reproducing maybe a couple of dozen spacecraft that have common traits and interchangeable parts.

My area of work involves an analogy of sorts. I do soundtrack music for films. The technology involved requires a considerable investment of time to learn software, etc. At the dawn of the age of technology for us musicians, there was a feeling of exclusivity to our world.

When embarking on my music career, I tried to get the biggest, fastest, most versatile and bug-proof hardware/software available. The biggest part of this investment was a Synclavier. Almost 25 years later, I still use my Synclav primarily. The other software I use, ProTools, is almost 20 years old now, with lots of upgrades. It's not worth the effort to learn something that will be obsolete next year. It's worth it if there's a longterm possibility of success.

Spacecraft design must involve these longterm visions. Make the software easy to upgrade, and make the hardware as potent as possible, so it can be relevant 20 years hence. Build it and they will come. Send a fleet of well-built spacecraft to the outer planets, and the software designers will surely keep them relevant.

What made Galileo great was: first, they managed to launch it, and then, by hook or crook they milked everything they could out of the mission. Equipment failure didn't stop them. The philosophy of longterm investment of money, hardware, software and human effort was worth it.

Missions to the outer planets are worth the wait, and the machinery should be designed accordingly.

[nprev]

It isn't "mass-producing". It's reproducing maybe a couple of dozen spacecraft that have common traits and interchangeable parts....
Missions to the outer planets are worth the wait, and the machinery should be designed accordingly.

Cannot disagree philosophically, but the problem is much more externally than internally driven.

We all know Moore's Law here, and that complicates long-term logistical support of software tremendously (older stuff gets REALLY expensive, really fast, to maintain; how to attract & retain coders for activities 30 years in the future?) Furthermore, achieving space qualification for IT hardware is not an insignificant effort. As of 2000, 80386 processors had finally achieved this for C-17 aircraft, which is a much lower level than that required for spacecraft. Add the fact that space exploration budgets do not generally enjoy stable long-term committments from decision makers for a variety of reasons...and thus very long-duration missions are correspondingly very difficult to sell.

A propulsion breakthough would obviate all this. Short of that, the overall risk profile for Cassini-equivalent outer-planet missions is questionable at best.

[dvandorn]

...As of 2000, 80386 processors had finally achieved this for C-17 aircraft, which is a much lower level than that required for spacecraft.

I believe the most advanced processors being used in manned space flight today (on the laptops and integrated computer systems on the ISS, for example) are 80486's. We're not even into the Pentium era yet.

I could be wrong, of course... I haven't dug deeply into the latest news about ISS computers. I surely hope the Shuttles have upgraded their base computers from the PDP-8's they were originally fitted out with, though.

-the other Doug