[ 10 Feb 03 08:43, Charles Angelich wrote to Scott Little ]

 SL>> cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, and quicker to program.
 CA> Do you mean easier to write code for?

Less need for low level programming languages, optimised code, audits or
result validation.

 SL>> and cost a few hundred thousand dollars.
 CA> Hammers cost $1000 at NASA.

My point exactly - they have to be designed to function properly in space.

 CA> Just the thought that four XT's are guiding a 178,000 pound
 CA> flying brick at MACH 25 falling from orbit to land at over 200
 CA> mph using 400k of code tickles me to no end. :-)

400k of (I assume compiled) code is a LOT of code when you don't have any
overheads to deal with.

 CA> Maybe the new design will use Z80's with only 100k of code or
 CA> 8080's or ... who can tell? Government contracting must be a
 CA> real hoot.

A new design will likely use another modified mass-produced processor.. 
logically a low powered RISC chip from IBM, but maybe something like a P4-M
if NASA want to reuse old code/stick with what they know.  Only Intel and
IBM would have the facilities to produce hardened chips, so it's unlikely
they'd use something from the smaller manufacturers.

And they'll be sure to buy a few thousand spares so they don't have to go
trawling Ebay for replacements this time :)


-- Scott Little  [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod{at}sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+