Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!bellcore!faline!thumper!ka9q.bellcore.com!karn
From: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: gratuitous anthrophobia (was Re: Shuttle computer reprogramming)
Message-ID: <1366@thumper.bellcore.com>
Date: 26 Oct 88 00:03:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: thumper.1366
References: <6689@nsc.nsc.com> <6980@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <1938@kalliope.rice.edu> <1988Oct20.175844.24740@utzoo.uucp> <1356@thumper.bellcore.com
Sender: news@thumper.bellcore.com
Reply-To: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com.UUCP (Phil Karn)
Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers
Lines: 13

Ah, now I understand the context of your comment. Actually, we're still
flying DRAMs in other spacecraft operating in more benign environments.
Both UoSAT-Oscar-9 and UoSAT-Oscar-11 have 4116 DRAM in their primary
onboard computers. These are the same types flown in Oscar-10.  Unlike
Oscar-10, however, the UoSATs are in low earth orbits where the radiation
flux is much less. They are both working fine.

As for risky technology sometimes failing, that's precisely my point!
When you take the low-cost, unmanned approach to spacecraft design,
you can afford to lose on a few risks.  If you can't accept
the consequences of a failure, you'd never try anything new.

Phil