nasa with a unlimited budget struggle to get things into mars and work
seriously - just look at what your trying to do
nasa have a team of 40 people to guide the rockets where they are meant to go - do you?
i wish you prove me wrong
if you manage this i will sell my house to fund your next project
nasa with a unlimited budget struggle to get things into mars and work
Since when has NASA had an unlimited budget? Last I heard they were struggling with massive budget cuts...
nasa have a team of 40 people to guide the rockets where they are meant to go - do you?
Again, this is off topic (having absolutely nothing to do with electronics surviving in space), but why do I need 40 people to do this? It's all going to be done by software anyway. Just look at projects like the one going to Pluto, at the moment it's shut off for most of the year, only coming on for a short period so two or three people can do checkups on it.
The calculations themselves are rather simple*. It's easier than aiming a rifle since you don't have to worry about wind or friction. The complexity arises because you have to be extremely precise. It is not difficult to make a computer be precise, it just takes time.
I just want to get past the initial reactions of "It can't be done" "it can't be done" and "it's impossible, it can't be done" and get down to answering "What, specifically, are the difficulties?" And, for this thread, specifically the difficulties with having electronics in space.
If I had said "I want to send a robot to the moon, how can I do this?" then I might understand all the negativity. But I didn't, I said "I want to send a robot to the moon, how can I make sure its electronics will survive?" So far most of the responses haven't even come close to addressing this question.
how do nasa do it
how are we going to know
look at the pro's
and i know nasa don't have an unlimited budget
it was just a point i was making - they spend 100's of millions before they even get it off the floor
I figured, because of its content, this would be a forum where everyone would have an exploratory attitude. I guess I figured wrong. I guess this is why there's so much animosity towards Arduinos. Most users aren't interested in doing more than blinking lights.
I'll ignoring the slam on the Arduino community, and give a courteous response...
I think the overall tone of the responses are due to the fact that this is probably not the best forum this type of question. (Particularly posting this in the FAQ subforum, as there's nothing "Frequent" about this Question at all).
Most of the posts in these forums are related to very specific and actionable projects. They are mostly specific to Arduino projects, and are from people who are seeking to overcome a short term challenges, errors, problems, etc... (Or who are seeking broad advice on an actionable idea.)
Whereas your question, while interesting and thought provoking, is neither. It is not really Arduino specific and does not lend itself to the expertise of the people on this board.
Well, I'm sorry. Wrong category. Wrong forum. My fault.
My "slam" on the community was based on being frustrated at reading responses to what I considered cool projects involving Arduinos posted on sites like hackaday. People routinely talk about how horrible they are and how they're only good for blinking lights.
I see them as prototyping tools. Quickly and easily programmed with a minimal learning curve. If blinking lights is all you can come up with then that's a failure of imagination, not the Arduino.
I was really excited to get mine, and to have this forum of like-minded people who want to discover what they can do with it. My excitement has been drained away by people with apparently little imagination. Chances are I won't be posting too much of my experiences here since imagination and desire for discovery is apparently not welcome.
it is welcome from what i have seen
but my god your idea seems far fetched
Yes, far fetched. Not impossible. This is why, in order to be realistic, it would take at least 10 years to accomplish. Meanwhile I'd need to find out if an AVR can survive in space.
As someone who's aiming to get a PhD working on something that can't be done in less than a decade doesn't seem that far fetched.
The expectation of most forums is that you do the most research you can on your project, and then ask the members for help when you get stuck. You appear to have a general dream and expect the members to figure it all out for you, or engage in what would generally be considered pointless debate. If you don't have specific well thought out Arduino technical questions, then don't expect much interest in members suggesting solutions. The answers to some of the questions you ask can be found with mouse clicks. Other questions will require engineering expertice. I agree that the post about cost are pointless and totally miss the point of an Arduino operating in a harsh environment.
tbh i doubt atmel will be around in 10/20 years tbh
I'm not expecting people to do my research for me, but if people already know or have ideas about where I should start looking then that's a good place to start. Also if anyone has any ideas about problems I haven't thought of that's good too. But only where it relates to the electronics.
I really don't see where I invited people to suggest my proposition was impossible. Perhaps the problem is that people are getting hung up on the project itself so let me restate, ignore the overall project of sending stuff to the moon.
What problems would I face operating an Arduino or other electronics in an environment that isn't space but is exactly like it? Imagine I have a large chamber that can simulate any set of conditions.
If thinking of it as a thought experiment is what it takes to get people to think about it then fine, it's a thought experiment. I'm not approaching it that way though, it's a brainstorming session, responses of "it can't be done" are ignored. (well, I should have ignored them anyway)
ok well
i would imagine you need to design a crystal that will survive in a vacuum
as for radiation what do nasa do?
Why would a crystal have a hard time in space? Isn't it just vibrating due to electrical stimulation?
I would assume NASA uses space spec chips which are significantly more expensive ($3+ when bought in bulk) than the standard catalog variety (around 20 cents when bought in bulk). I don't know of any recent microcontrollers or processors that are built to space spec and would probably be really expensive anyway.
There's plenty of scholarly articles that go into detail on the theory of the subject but I haven't been able to find anything practical. Nothing that says "here's what you can do to standard electronics" or "here are alternatives" or even "here's what it looks like when standard electronics are used".
I know that standard electronics are susceptible to radiation, yet I also know that standard electronics HAVE been used in spacecraft. At the beginning of the space race ICs were just being invented (and, in fact, for a while they were used solely in military projects), they weren't space hardened then. Heck, they barely worked by today's standards.
I also know that, at least for a while, even ground-based computers had problems with cosmic rays flipping bits and so had error compensation built in (apparently that problem all but disappeared when they started using plastic housings for the chips). So complex error correction can be used to compensate for deficient hardware, but I'm not sure if the radiation encountered in space would be too much to try and compensate for. If I knew anyone at JPL I'd ask them, unfortunately I've long since lost touch with the few acquaintances I had that worked there.
I used to work with people* who would have been an excellent source of information but, mostly due to the recession, I don't any more.
I don't know if this has been mentioned (honestly, I CBA to read through all of this), but you need some sore of lubricant for moving parts. On earth (in the presence of Oxygen), a natural thin oxide layer forms between moving metal parts, keeping them lubricated. This process doesn't exist in the vacuum of space, therefore you need some other type of lubricant.
Yup, I did mention vacuum cementing a while back in passing. Apparently it's also called Cold or contact welding, and, according to some (apparently knowledgeable) guy, is a myth...
Quote:
Quote:
I watched the Top Gear team's fantastic failure of trying to put a reliant robin into space. I knew that was rather far fetched, but had the release mechanisms worked it might have actually made it.That has got to be the most ridiculous statement I've read all week.
What, exactly, is ridiculous about it? Sending a car into space? I agree. That it might actually have worked? Whyever not? Given the right amount of the right kind of fuel set up in the right way there's no reason why it couldn't work.
What is ridiculous is that you missed the point - the car was never going into space (which would have been illegal in UK airspace, and impossible on BBC budgets).
That was why they had the R/C guy to try to land it.
Yay! They got a quarter tonne of plastic car up to 3000 feet.
Well done them.
I mean it- eight tonnes of thrust is a lot of rocket.
Seriously though, read up on the history of spaceflight.
Sputnik was launched in 1957.
It was probably over 25 years before "amateur" devices like UoSAT made it into LEO.
In that time, computers went from room-sized monsters to the IBM-PC.
UoSAT's (SSTL, now part of EADS Astrium) successors use industrial-grade components in their spacecraft with lots of redundancy, both in hardware and software.
The Moon is nearly a thousand times further away than LEO.
Lunar missions are still big news in the industry.
By the time the Moon is in the amateur's reach, I think the AVR will have been consigned to controlling electric toothbrushes.
I'm not trying to prick your bubble; just pointing out that if anything, you're aiming too low with your choice of hardware.
impossible on BBC budgets
I dunno - they must have a few quid, now that JR has left.
Let's forget your previous comments and focus on your thought experiment. You want to look at hardware that could possibly be used for a space mission and the implications. First question for you to answer:
You're going to space. You've spent a lot of money going there. It's taken the last 10 years of your life to get this point. As your project limps across the moon, bumping into rocks and streaming data back at terrific 9600bps.....
Why oh why oh why did you spend <$50 on the processing component.
yet I also know that standard electronics HAVE been used in spacecraft. At the beginning of the space race ICs were just being invented (and, in fact, for a while they were used solely in military projects), they weren't space hardened then.
One big difference between then and now is feature size - how many actual atoms are used to make up a gate on the die. Early ICs had huge feature sizes, so that the impact of a particle affected a small part of a single transistor. Modern ICs have much smaller features, such that a radiation particle strike affects an entire transistor. These strikes can cause temporary errors (e.g. single event upset), or can permanently damage the device.
NASA deals with the problem in three ways: hardened devices, shielding, and redundancy. IIRC, there's only one fabrication line left running that produces rad-hardened devices, and those devices aren't all that modern anyway.
-j
I've heard estimates that if the funding was provided we could build, and launch, manned interstellar craft within 50 years. We went to the moon at great expense over 40 years ago, much has improved, technologically, since then.
Then you've been listening to idiots. Interstellar flight? To WHERE?? I'd listen to the feedback you're getting here, most of it is spot on. It's easy to have ideas, and it's too easy to not know how ridiculous they are to implement. I've enjoyed this thread but sadly it's losing steam now.
You seem to be lacking in the basics which makes it easy to ask questions but unable to accept the responses and then get a bit upset because it doesn't fit in with your vision. You're never getting a lander on the moon. Never. Even winning the lottery won't help. Tens of millions would barely get you off the ground with a project like a lunar lander. The technology won't improve in the way you think it might, not in 10 years or in 50. Space will always be very expensive, simply from a joules per pound/dollar perspective.
Ahh well, i'm bowing out of the thread as it's become unproductive, but really - what an idea. A lunar/martian lander? Why not build a HALO or space elevator and be done with it?
By the way, I'm a physics specialist.
StarkRG:
You mentioned Scaled Composites; I've been to their hanger back in the day when Voyager was flying - didn't get to meet anybody important or such (it was a lonely weekend), but I had fun as a kid.
Scaled Composites DID NOT go into orbit with their launch. At best, they had a ballistic trajectory. They -barely- made it to the edge of the atmosphere where "space" begins. In no way did they have the fuel budget or speed needed to achieve orbit.
They ended up spending the equivalent of $2.00 for a 25 cent prize. I realize they were just proving it could be done, and that it was one small step. With that said, we have yet to see anybody else do it. I am not saying it won't be done again (non-orbital launch); Virgin just might do it next, or someone else. But that is still a long way from attaining low-earth orbit.
LEO is a long way away (orders of magnitude) from a moon flight and landing.
Finally - if you don't think you are going to have to answer to some government somewhere on Earth (or deal with politics) when it comes to building the equivalent of a intercontinental ballistic device - you are dreaming. Dreaming big, but still asleep.
Good luck.
You're never getting a lander on the moon. Never. Even winning the lottery won't help. Tens of millions would barely get you off the ground with a project like a lunar lander. The technology won't improve in the way you think it might, not in 10 years or in 50. Space will always be very expensive, simply from a joules per pound/dollar perspective
Hmmm..., so where does he ever say he is going to personally finance a lunar lander? Where did you get that idea in your head??? And yes, lunar landers have successfully been put on the moon, so if you have the $$$, it can be done.