Author Topic: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space  (Read 27746 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #20 on: 05/22/2010 06:32 pm »
It sounds as if off the shelf processors are O.K. as long as thorough error checking and correcting is implemented in the design. Perhaps a block of processors operating in a 5 way voting scheme--similar to the Space Shuttle GPC's--could be used for Criticality 1 applications. Data processing and non-critical applications could use more conventional networks...

Error correcting and checking is not a kind of bolt-on, it needs to be inherent in the full design, top to bottom. 

Here's the list of rad-hardened CPU's on the market taken from wikipedia:
BRE440, Proton200k, Proton 100k, RCA1802, System/4 Pi, RAD6000, RAD750, RH Pentium, RH32, RHPPC, SCS750, ERC32 SPARC, LEON SPARC, RH1750, Coldfire M5208, Mongoose-V

Of these, the Protons and SCS750 do just this kind of "vote-tally" approach, but it needs to be done at the chip level.  Implimenting it on the board level, using commodity PC CPU's would be far more inefficient, and expensive, than to use the rad-hardened designs already in use.
True, but a board or chip utilizing ECC and vote-tallying could be manufactured using the exact same processes as are used for COTS components whereas rad-hard components use different manufacturing techniques, right?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #21 on: 05/22/2010 06:44 pm »
It sounds as if off the shelf processors are O.K. as long as thorough error checking and correcting is implemented in the design. Perhaps a block of processors operating in a 5 way voting scheme--similar to the Space Shuttle GPC's--could be used for Criticality 1 applications. Data processing and non-critical applications could use more conventional networks...

Error correcting and checking is not a kind of bolt-on, it needs to be inherent in the full design, top to bottom. 

Here's the list of rad-hardened CPU's on the market taken from wikipedia:
BRE440, Proton200k, Proton 100k, RCA1802, System/4 Pi, RAD6000, RAD750, RH Pentium, RH32, RHPPC, SCS750, ERC32 SPARC, LEON SPARC, RH1750, Coldfire M5208, Mongoose-V

Of these, the Protons and SCS750 do just this kind of "vote-tally" approach, but it needs to be done at the chip level.  Implimenting it on the board level, using commodity PC CPU's would be far more inefficient, and expensive, than to use the rad-hardened designs already in use.
True, but a board or chip utilizing ECC and vote-tallying could be manufactured using the exact same processes as are used for COTS components whereas rad-hard components use different manufacturing techniques, right?
You are ignoring the volume issue.  At the volume of manufacturing you're talking, under 100 units per year, the extra complexity will cost you more even with the cheaper components.  The beauty of RAD-hardened systems is that you can use commodity manufacturing techniques, just using harder materials. 

I've worked with systems with volume of under 20 units a year, when discussing such low volume of work, the higher-quality of components always win out over cheaper.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #22 on: 05/22/2010 09:56 pm »

Here's the list of rad-hardened CPU's on the market taken from wikipedia:
BRE440, Proton200k, Proton 100k, RCA1802, System/4 Pi, RAD6000, RAD750, RH Pentium, RH32, RHPPC, SCS750, ERC32 SPARC, LEON SPARC, RH1750, Coldfire M5208, Mongoose-V


Plus the SIDECAR microprocessor with its built in analogue-to-digital converter and ability to work at cryogenic temperatures.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #23 on: 05/23/2010 12:20 am »
It sounds as if off the shelf processors are O.K. as long as thorough error checking and correcting is implemented in the design. Perhaps a block of processors operating in a 5 way voting scheme--similar to the Space Shuttle GPC's--could be used for Criticality 1 applications. Data processing and non-critical applications could use more conventional networks...

Error correcting and checking is not a kind of bolt-on, it needs to be inherent in the full design, top to bottom. 

Here's the list of rad-hardened CPU's on the market taken from wikipedia:
BRE440, Proton200k, Proton 100k, RCA1802, System/4 Pi, RAD6000, RAD750, RH Pentium, RH32, RHPPC, SCS750, ERC32 SPARC, LEON SPARC, RH1750, Coldfire M5208, Mongoose-V

Of these, the Protons and SCS750 do just this kind of "vote-tally" approach, but it needs to be done at the chip level.  Implimenting it on the board level, using commodity PC CPU's would be far more inefficient, and expensive, than to use the rad-hardened designs already in use.
True, but a board or chip utilizing ECC and vote-tallying could be manufactured using the exact same processes as are used for COTS components whereas rad-hard components use different manufacturing techniques, right?
You are ignoring the volume issue.  At the volume of manufacturing you're talking, under 100 units per year, the extra complexity will cost you more even with the cheaper components.  The beauty of RAD-hardened systems is that you can use commodity manufacturing techniques, just using harder materials. 

I've worked with systems with volume of under 20 units a year, when discussing such low volume of work, the higher-quality of components always win out over cheaper.
Well, I certainly yield to your greater experience.

I agree that you should use rad-hardened components if they are available and meet your requirements! In that case, rad-hard components would be off-the-shelf. If they don't meet your requirements, then perhaps it would be a good idea to do these more complicated end-to-end ecc (and voting) methods versus spending a bunch of money to enhance the state-of-the-art in rad-hard fabrication methods.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #24 on: 05/23/2010 01:02 am »
It sounds as if off the shelf processors are O.K. as long as thorough error checking and correcting is implemented in the design. Perhaps a block of processors operating in a 5 way voting scheme--similar to the Space Shuttle GPC's--could be used for Criticality 1 applications. Data processing and non-critical applications could use more conventional networks...

Error correcting and checking is not a kind of bolt-on, it needs to be inherent in the full design, top to bottom. 

Here's the list of rad-hardened CPU's on the market taken from wikipedia:
BRE440, Proton200k, Proton 100k, RCA1802, System/4 Pi, RAD6000, RAD750, RH Pentium, RH32, RHPPC, SCS750, ERC32 SPARC, LEON SPARC, RH1750, Coldfire M5208, Mongoose-V

Of these, the Protons and SCS750 do just this kind of "vote-tally" approach, but it needs to be done at the chip level.  Implimenting it on the board level, using commodity PC CPU's would be far more inefficient, and expensive, than to use the rad-hardened designs already in use.
True, but a board or chip utilizing ECC and vote-tallying could be manufactured using the exact same processes as are used for COTS components whereas rad-hard components use different manufacturing techniques, right?
You are ignoring the volume issue.  At the volume of manufacturing you're talking, under 100 units per year, the extra complexity will cost you more even with the cheaper components.  The beauty of RAD-hardened systems is that you can use commodity manufacturing techniques, just using harder materials. 

I've worked with systems with volume of under 20 units a year, when discussing such low volume of work, the higher-quality of components always win out over cheaper.
Well, I certainly yield to your greater experience.

I agree that you should use rad-hardened components if they are available and meet your requirements! In that case, rad-hard components would be off-the-shelf. If they don't meet your requirements, then perhaps it would be a good idea to do these more complicated end-to-end ecc (and voting) methods versus spending a bunch of money to enhance the state-of-the-art in rad-hard fabrication methods.
in those cases it is cheaper to actually roll your own with rad-hardened fpga technology or ASIC.  With modern low-volume chip production, you can custom make a chip to do the job for less than retrofitting the technology onto non-hardened tech in most scenarios i've delt with.

Of course as I say this I am working on a custom rad-hardened chip for a one-off project.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #25 on: 05/23/2010 05:08 am »
in those cases it is cheaper to actually roll your own with rad-hardened fpga technology or ASIC.

Rad-hard FPGAs seem to have a lot of potential for one-off science missions, but last I heard, they're still pretty low in transistor count. Has this been getting better?

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #26 on: 05/23/2010 10:33 am »
in those cases it is cheaper to actually roll your own with rad-hardened fpga technology or ASIC.

Rad-hard FPGAs seem to have a lot of potential for one-off science missions, but last I heard, they're still pretty low in transistor count. Has this been getting better?

FPGAs follow Moore's Law.  Due to the high routing and programming overhead (several transistors for each of the user's gates) they are at least a decade behind dedicated chips.

At four launches a year LV are not exactly a mass production item, using FPGA in them helps make them financially viable.

edit: clarify meaning
« Last Edit: 05/23/2010 02:48 pm by A_M_Swallow »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #27 on: 05/23/2010 02:21 pm »
in those cases it is cheaper to actually roll your own with rad-hardened fpga technology or ASIC.

Rad-hard FPGAs seem to have a lot of potential for one-off science missions, but last I heard, they're still pretty low in transistor count. Has this been getting better?

FPGAs follow Moore's Law.  Due to the high routing and programming overhead (several transistors for each of the user's gates) they are at least a decade behind dedicated chips.

At four launches a year LV are not exactly a mass production item, making using FPGA in them viable.
I wouldn't put them a decade behind, but yes, their gate count is lower due to the redundancies required.  The one I am working with right now is 1.6M gates, the Actel MH1RT.  I prefer Xilinx normally, but this chip had a few features necessary for this app.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline TyMoore

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
  • Eureka, CA, USA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #28 on: 05/23/2010 04:17 pm »
O.K., I've got a question:

Without getting into too many specific, proprietary, or classified details; how much (in a rough ball park) does it cost to develop a new Rad Hard FPGA processor?
 

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #29 on: 05/23/2010 04:24 pm »
One situation where it is certain that COTS electronics could be used is when cosmic rays force massive shielding for crew protection.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #30 on: 05/23/2010 09:47 pm »
O.K., I've got a question:

Without getting into too many specific, proprietary, or classified details; how much (in a rough ball park) does it cost to develop a new Rad Hard FPGA processor?
 

I suspect an ambiguity in your question that you did not realise.

Do you mean
a. programming an existing FPGA?  (Army or Air Force paid for the hardware design.)  The software is called Intellectual Property (IP).
b. design a circuit board containing an FPGA?  (Same as any other NASA made-to-measure circuit board.)
c. design one from scratch?  (Several hundred million dollars.)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #31 on: 05/24/2010 01:30 am »
O.K., I've got a question:

Without getting into too many specific, proprietary, or classified details; how much (in a rough ball park) does it cost to develop a new Rad Hard FPGA processor?
 
That is akin to asking how much it would cost to make a vehicle.

A vehicle can be a unicycle or a rocket powered monorail, so you need to be more specific.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #32 on: 05/24/2010 01:39 am »
How many ARM7 cores can dance on the head of a rad-hard FPGA pin?

Edit:  Oops, apparently I meant CortexM1 not ARM7.
http://www.actel.com/products/mpu/CortexM1/
« Last Edit: 05/24/2010 01:44 am by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #33 on: 05/24/2010 01:58 am »
How many ARM7 cores can dance on the head of a rad-hard FPGA pin?

Edit:  Oops, apparently I meant CortexM1 not ARM7.
http://www.actel.com/products/mpu/CortexM1/
Approx 12 of them could fit if using a simple round-robin bus system.  (took 15 minutes to try this using the FPGA I'm using atm)
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline josh_simonson

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #34 on: 05/25/2010 11:04 pm »
Usually the grades of ICs (commercial, industrial, military) just denote the level of testing that they have undergone, IE, room, temp, extended temp.  Tri-temp testing can cost as much as the die and package, and yield loss usually goes up a couple percent, justifying the higher prices.

There are plenty of COTS rad-hard parts available.  I think COTS usually means 'already available at a reasonable price' as opposed to building a custom widget for your application or paying rapacious prices for it.  Pre-existing products have also usually had time to build a track record of success, whereas something new is more likely to have bugs left in it.


Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #35 on: 05/25/2010 11:18 pm »
Usually the grades of ICs (commercial, industrial, military) just denote the level of testing that they have undergone, IE, room, temp, extended temp.  Tri-temp testing can cost as much as the die and package, and yield loss usually goes up a couple percent, justifying the higher prices.

There are plenty of COTS rad-hard parts available.  I think COTS usually means 'already available at a reasonable price' as opposed to building a custom widget for your application or paying rapacious prices for it.  Pre-existing products have also usually had time to build a track record of success, whereas something new is more likely to have bugs left in it.


If there are lots of COTS rad-hard parts, they should be used!!! In that case, using non-rad-hard parts is not going to make a lot of sense.

What I'm really interested in is high-temp and low-temp parts so that thermal management requirements become extremely relaxed.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #36 on: 05/26/2010 02:04 am »
Usually the grades of ICs (commercial, industrial, military) just denote the level of testing that they have undergone, IE, room, temp, extended temp.  Tri-temp testing can cost as much as the die and package, and yield loss usually goes up a couple percent, justifying the higher prices.

There are plenty of COTS rad-hard parts available.  I think COTS usually means 'already available at a reasonable price' as opposed to building a custom widget for your application or paying rapacious prices for it.  Pre-existing products have also usually had time to build a track record of success, whereas something new is more likely to have bugs left in it.


If there are lots of COTS rad-hard parts, they should be used!!! In that case, using non-rad-hard parts is not going to make a lot of sense.

What I'm really interested in is high-temp and low-temp parts so that thermal management requirements become extremely relaxed.
They do have them.  I used to love this one m68000 with its distinctive pink case.  It was thermally incredible, I used it for a controller, had to go from -120C to over 500C.  What did it in tho, me spilling a bottle of grape crush.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline e of pi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 723
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 297
  • Likes Given: 406
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #37 on: 07/17/2010 06:18 am »
This thread seems sort of related to a topic I want to ask about, so I'm bumping it rather than creating my own.

I can see why commercially available electronics are unsuited for control, avionics, ect, but are they usable in non-critical areas? Would one be able to fly an iPod or Kindle, or would one need to develop a space-rated alternative? I use mine so often to entertain myself on the ground, it seem like it might be worth it to let astronauts read without taking up pounds of books.

Also, I can get why processors and chipsets have to be shielded, but what about things like LCDs? Do those also require special versions?

Offline Jorge

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6404
  • Liked: 529
  • Likes Given: 67
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #38 on: 07/17/2010 06:27 am »
This thread seems sort of related to a topic I want to ask about, so I'm bumping it rather than creating my own.

I can see why commercially available electronics are unsuited for control, avionics, ect, but are they usable in non-critical areas? Would one be able to fly an iPod or Kindle, or would one need to develop a space-rated alternative?

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Space/story?id=3484420&page=1
http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/do-astronauts-take-ipods-to-space-0378/

Quote
Also, I can get why processors and chipsets have to be shielded, but what about things like LCDs? Do those also require special versions?

No
JRF

Offline HIPAR

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • NE Pa (USA)
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Using commercial off the shelf electronics in space
« Reply #39 on: 07/17/2010 01:00 pm »
It's not uncommon to see 20 years of service from a satellite.  We marvel about Voyager still operating 30 years while leaving the solar system.  So they must have done something special selecting electronic components and assembling the black boxes.

I'm happy to get 5 years of service from an earthbound iGadget.

---  CHAS

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0