Xbox 360 is More Powerful Than Space Shuttle Computer

[Guest]

They' re slow because of being made on larger manufacturing processes. Because on earth, we are shielded by our atmosphere and magnetic fields from cosmic radiations, we can get away with smaller transistors. But outside, they'll be fried by radiations.

 

[Guest]

Is the XBOX 360 rated for space flight conditions and loads? Do you NEED a power hog like that to do basic functions?

This is a stupid article...

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]Likely correct. It's fault-tolerant and probably uses relatively large die features so as to limit the effect of cosmic rays. It's also radiation-hardened.[/citation]

Power supply out there aren't as stable in those environments either, don't want that 1,3v 2600k chip to get into power issues, a 5v 486 gives better headroom to work with as well as better resistance to radiation due to higher micron and chip to die leads are likely thicker to handle that extra juice too.

 

[robochump]

Its more reliable to have a simple yet highly reliable computer that basically controls life support and on or off controls for various equipment. Just sad that the US does not have the money to build a solid Space Shuttle replacement and reverting back to old school rockets.

 

[upgrade_1977]

Makes me wonder if tomshardware got paid to post this. Why Xbox 360? Why not PS3, Nintendo, Android, Iphone, Zune, Nook, ect?

 

[VirtualMirage]

[citation][nom]WR2[/nom]XBox 360 is probably a better choice than a Nintendo Wii.[/citation]
Even though that was such a silly and troll-like comment with no basis mentioned for a validity (let alone unrealistic to use such a device in the space shuttle as its main computer), I have to ask: why do you think this and what do you have to back your opinion?

If people must go on and say what current console would be best to run the space shuttle, I would have to counter your opinion and say the Wii would be the better choice. Now this isn't from a fan boy perspective, but from one that is more logical and thought out. Hear me out on this.

Argument 1: Out of the three current consoles, the Wii consumes the least amount of power. Since the shuttle is running off of fuel cells and not something with a extremely long power generating life (ie, nuclear or solar), you would want to have a device that consumes as little power as possible and run efficiently to boot. With the Wii consuming less than 20 watts compared to the other two systems 100+ watt consumption (certain models even close to or more than 200 watts), those two consoles wouldn't even be a consideration.

Argument 2: Reliability. Being up in space, you need a very reliable piece of hardware, no wonder NASA decided to stick with their IBM 5150 equivalent workhorse. Out of the three consoles, I'd have to say the Wii is the most reliable. It may not be the fastest of the three, but it is still light years faster than what was on board. It's not playing Far Cry, it's running calculations with strictly purpose built software. As some of the jokes above point at, no one wants a RROD while in space. Other than a bad firmware update, I have yet personally seen a Wii fail due to its own hardware issues. I couldn't say that for the Xbox360 or a few of the early fatboy PS3s.

I've got a few more I could add (cost and performance I could mention as well), but then this would just get too long and I have already proved my point. So maybe a little more thought should go into a post before hitting the submit button for everyone to see.

 

[awood28211]

Don't forget that lots of old CPUs were "hardened" for the rigors of space. This makes them more ideal for reliability where it's valued as opposed to performance. I'd rather have a working computer controlling a bajillion pounds of thrust at 100Mhz as opposed to a non working one at 3 ghz.

 

[eddieroolz]

Jeez, our graphic calculators are more powerful than a Space Shuttle computer. So what?

 

[jsheridan]

but can it play Crysis?

 

[dizzy_davidh]

The reason behind the choice of processor and subsequent reluctance to change was that the 8086 processor on which the shuttles CPUs where originally based have large-scale nanometre pathways many times larger than that of current CPUs that would be very unlikely to be affected by stray radiation that might otherwise change any of the CPU's transistor states. As a result the chances of a processor failure\miscalculation would be greatly reduced.

That doesn't mean to say there isn't a lot of the processors within the various systems of the shuttle but it is likely that no matter how many there are their combined processing power wouldn't be anywhere near that of a single XBOX360 so that point is likely to be true.

 

[Guest]

So I can't play PACMAN at moon? I play PACMAN only on my XBOX360. That is sad...

 

[mayankleoboy1]

IQ (XBOX 360 users)

 

[Guest]

Technology is a lot more than computers, you narrow minded twit.

 

[rwinches]

The original system used in the shuttle was 51xx series. System A and B
Either 5100 or 5110 all IBM components. Small card cage with about 6 multi layer cards ~3"x3".
The Earth Bound versions used 8" floppy drives one for Program and one for Data
These were basic computers the 5110 had APL also.
These systems has ~64k memory and very small screens with 64 hex pair display a switch would allow lsb or msb to be chosen if needed. Ascii text also.
The 5150 using third party chips became the PC 5160 the PC-XT 8088
Last in the series 5170 AT 286
On the first launch the systems kept switching control A to B and back.
It was realized that they had not accounted for the violent shaking during launch.