[ExI] Why space tech isn't cutting edge

[spike]

>... On Behalf Of Dan
Subject: Re: [ExI] Why space tech isn't cutting edge

>> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>> Be aware however that the path to such a coating in littered with 
>>> the corpses of those who have gone before and failed...  spike


>...I have no problem with looking at past failed efforts and see this a
problem with some research... it might be easier just to do all kinds of
trial and error tests that lead to solutions that might never be found if
one worked from known theories or known working applications alone.
Regards, Dan
____________________________________________

Dan this is one of those special cases where a lot of trial and error would
produce very predictable results.  We have a microprocessor, we have in
enclosed in something.  Whenever a sufficiently high energy particle comes
in, it hits a solid surface which is held together by chemical bonds.  If
the kinetic energy of the particle is sufficiently high, it does not matter
what those chemical bonds are or how strong: the electromagnetic attraction
that forms bonds is negligible compared to the energy of the incoming
particle.  So the particle whacks loose a shower of secondary particles, all
of which have lower energy, but they are charged, since that secondary
shower contains electrons and protons, along with plenty of other oddball
ons which we never see outside of some super high energy event, such as in a
particle accelerator.

So we get this shower of secondary particles that hit the microprocessor,
and we know by Maxwell's equations an incoming charged particle creates an
EM field which in some rare cases can flip a bit, which does unpredictable
things to the process or memory.  Sufficiently geezerly types here may
recall playing Core War back in the 70s.  The space environment plays a
pumped up version of Core War with our processes, but rather than just flip
a bit, in some cases it might actually fuck up the processor hardware
itself.  So it is possible that there is a smallest practical integration or
smallest practical interconnect that can be used for space applications in
which the mission depends on the processor working perfectly, if we keep
with our present software paradigm.

To make matters worse, usually whenever there is a holy grail to be found,
there are many seekers, and they are not eager to tell the others where they
have already searched.  The failed attempts are valuable trade secrets.  I
can imagine the lads up at Berkeley must be amused at the parade of geeks
that come thru with the same old tired ideas that the accelerator lads
already know will fail.  But they are not at liberty to divulge that
information, and wouldn't in any case, for that geek parade pays the bills
up there on the hill and keeps the lights on up at the cyclotron.

I am of the notion that the answer is to go to massssssive parallelism,
massive.  We need not three but about thirty processors, where a majority
vote means something.  Then we can go ahead and let them shrink to these
super-tiny integrations we see on the market today, knowing that some of
them will get zapped by cosmic rays.  In the meantime, the good old i486 is
still used in some flight applications.

spike