Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!mailrus!uwmcsd1!marque!studsys!jetzer
From: jetzer@studsys.mu.edu (jetzer)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: shuttle computers; big solids
Summary: RAM
Message-ID: <252@studsys.mu.edu>
Date: 3 Oct 88 18:23:41 GMT
References: <6689@nsc.nsc.com> <1543@hp-sdd.HP.COM> <1988Oct1.230542.11512@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: Marquette University - Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Lines: 22

In article <1988Oct1.230542.11512@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <1543@hp-sdd.HP.COM> hinojosa@hp-sdd.hp.com.UUCP (Daniel Hinojosa) writes:
> >Someone here at work mentioned that the shuttle has less memory than
> >many home computers, in the neighborhood of 640K.

> Space also imposes some special constraints like radiation resistance, which
> affects the issue; the dynamic RAMs used in PCs and the like are not usually
> considered fit for use in space.


What does 'fit for use in space' mean?

As I recall, someone sent up an Apple ][+ along with an experiment (and there
have, no doubt, been many other computers that have gone up).  I can see
that the main computers have more constraints on safety and such, but why
would someone spend many thousands of dollars to send up a scientific
experiment, only to have the results spoiled because of a zapped RAM.


-- 
Mike Jetzer
"Hack first, ask questions later."