> "This proves electronics built around 50 years ago, 12 years before Voyager 1, and far before microprocessors and integrated circuits are still capable of working in the hostile environs of space."
I think in some aspect, it might be even more so (robust), than today's technology: Simpler, more to-the-point technology, leading to greater robustness.
I think today's tech and IT industry has something to learn there, and I'm really happy about the "back to basics" trend in IT, going back to compiled, to-the-point languages like Go, closer-to-the hardware cloud systems etc.
Recently I've been working my way through the PPrune megathread on Concorde: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/423988-concorde-question-77.h... , in which (somewhere) is a discussion of the control systems. Analog fly-by-wire! A complex set of "synchro" and "resolver" systems connected to op-amps, giving it autostabilisation and autothrottle all the way up to Mach 2. The pilots would just push the throttles full open on the runway and leave them there until it was time to come down.
I think the main lesson would be that making your transistors and switching currents enormously large is good for longevity in space, but that's nothing new.
One thing about tech in hostile environments is resilience to radiation, which is more or less proportional to number of electrons in junction. With smaller fabrication process we win lower energy consumption and much better integration, but at a cost of radiation resilience.
Unlike this one that never worked properly, two other satellites launched in the same series, LES-8 and LES-9 are still functioning as designed. They were powered by RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generator) rather than batteries/solar though.
There's a certain level of intuition that one can grasp with hardware as opposed to software. I suspect this might contribute to most robustness in design.
Satellite is launched, goes silent after a few years due to electrical problems. Decades later, the onboard batteries have deteriorated such that they're just a short (no storage capacity), and the satellite works intermittently when the solar panels are exposed to enough sunlight.
In 2013 in North Cornwall, UK, an Amateur Radio Astronomer picked up a signal which he determined to be the LES1 that was built by MIT in 1965.
The date in the URL and article says 2016 though, so I'm still not completely clarified on whether this is 3-year-old news or if the satellite is now transmitting again, again --- actually, looking at the name of the site... I'm leaning towards the former.
Reminds me of: "It is then determined MPU is actually an old spy satellite disguised as a weather satellite, that was programmed to reactivate after a certain period of receiving no commands."
Doesn't this remind anyone of "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home"? ...Where an alien probe comes into earths orbit wreaking havoc to check on the whales and turns out to be an early satllite from earth...
You are mixing up two different Star Trek movies. The ship from 'The Voyage Home' wasn't a man made satellite, it was an alien "whale" ship. However in the first Star Trek movie, a massive ship threatens Earth but turns out to be Voyager 1 returning home.
You're getting old enough to mix the plots of the 1st and 4th movies together. V'ger was the early earth satellite that the enterprise chased down. The probe seeking humpback whales was of alien origin. According to what I remember of the novelization, the aliens had visited earth before recorded history.
I'm not happy I read the novelization of a Star Trek movie, but there we are.
[+] [-] samuell|9 years ago|reply
I think in some aspect, it might be even more so (robust), than today's technology: Simpler, more to-the-point technology, leading to greater robustness.
I think today's tech and IT industry has something to learn there, and I'm really happy about the "back to basics" trend in IT, going back to compiled, to-the-point languages like Go, closer-to-the hardware cloud systems etc.
[+] [-] pjc50|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Someone|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sorokod|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] friendzis|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kalleboo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oxide|9 years ago|reply
I'd think you'd want a decent return in terms of longevity, considering the size and (I would assume) weight of it.
I'd bet modern satellites are much more disposable by comparison.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vasaulys|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mc32|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ttyl0125|9 years ago|reply
Satellite is launched, goes silent after a few years due to electrical problems. Decades later, the onboard batteries have deteriorated such that they're just a short (no storage capacity), and the satellite works intermittently when the solar panels are exposed to enough sunlight.
[+] [-] madengr|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] userbinator|9 years ago|reply
The date in the URL and article says 2016 though, so I'm still not completely clarified on whether this is 3-year-old news or if the satellite is now transmitting again, again --- actually, looking at the name of the site... I'm leaning towards the former.
[+] [-] grendelt|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nowarninglabel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fader|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgleason_3|9 years ago|reply
Man, I'm gettin' old.
[+] [-] Saturnaut|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mgleason_3|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oldmanjay|9 years ago|reply
I'm not happy I read the novelization of a Star Trek movie, but there we are.
[+] [-] rubyfan|9 years ago|reply