0
22

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

Please note from the diagrams that the CPU is not the usual Von Neumann Architecture we have on our PCs but rather a Harward Architecture.

A massive opportunity was missed when we gave market preference to Intel and their x86 for general computing, a trend still continuing. Even today there is no end to the bugs and vulnerabilities posed by this flawed architecture.

0
2

[–] reddo 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What kind of vulnerabilities exist in Von Neumann Archtitecture vs. Harvard Architecture?

0
5

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Data and instructions are stored in the same memory. This means any data no matter how it got there is executable as code.

0
1

[–] dman87 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's interesting. I did not know of these two different architectures.

Thanks for the info!

0
0

[–] Waspocracy 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Also adding on that it's built in assembly language. So, if you want to run Crash Bandicoot on it, it's not going to work.

0
0

[–] DonanFear 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's kinda interesting but MIPS isn't a Harward Architecture because it uses shared memory like every other mainstream CPU. Sure, it has separate data and instruction caches but so does every x86 chip since the original Pentium.

0
9

[–] maciozo 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Well, it makes sense, really. It's probably a lot simpler to program for, making it less likely for fatal bugs or crashes to occur. I imaging it also requires a lot less power than a more modern CPU.

0
8

[–] tjap 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

the russians still shoot their rockets into space with some old legacy computer, the less parts a system has, the less parts that can break

0
5

[–] Caboose_Calloway 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

The Philae lander used a stack machine designed in the 80s (!)

"x86 was not designed with high reliability and radiation tolerance in mind"

0
3

[–] brucethemoose 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

They use an old "Playstation CPU" because it's hardier than newer CPUs with tiny transistors.

When radiation/cosmic rays hit the physical die of a CPU, there's a chance that it'll flip one of the bits on CPU, corrupting data. This is why servers on Earth use ECC memory, as they can tell if one of the bits has been flipped with a parity check.

CPUs with smaller/newer transistors are more susceptible than an old CPU with big transistors. That's why NASA chose to use an ancient Playstation CPU over a smaller, lighter, faster, and more power efficient SOC... It's not just tried and true, it's physically tougher.

0
0

[–] firex726 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Also the fact that most of the heavy computation will be done on Earth and the onboard computer simply does not need to be very powerful.

1
2

[–] dalek_caan 1 points 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

Slower CPUs tend to make less errors. Modern CPUs process millions of operations every second, so the odds for any error to occurs are bigger.

In a space shuttle/probe you need every thing to be calculated with an extremely high accuracy, so for this the software should be optimized and tested for that exact CPU. It's a tedious process, so as longs as the old CPUs can do the job, there is no need for any upgrade.

0
1

[–] filipefilope 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I remember a popular playground myth in elementary school was that the PS1 was delayed (or something like that) because governments were worried the chip could be used in missiles. I wish I knew who started it!

0
0

[–] dake [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Now THAT is interesting!

0
1

[–] Astromachine 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Wasn't there a lot of fuss over Iraq or Iran using a bunch of PS2s to make guided missiles or nuclear bombs when it first came out?

2
1

[–] benender 2 points 1 points (+3|-2) ago  (edited ago)

Hahahahah @ iverge in "technology"

EDIT: LOOOOL @ OP being mad for being called out on this. They are clickbait pseudo-journalists and the most OBVIOUS i-shills.

0
0

[–] shirtlords 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

To be fair, wired sucks quite a bit of iDick too...

0
1

[–] The_Wanderer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

This goes to show you: they really DON'T make 'em like they used to, folks! :)

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)