Often when we think of space exploration, specifically the technology that goes into space exploration, we assume that what we’re sending up there are the best and most capable computers and instrumentation we can produce — but think about how delicate and finicky brand-new or hyper-advanced technologies can be, and how hard it is to maintain something in orbit or beyond.
The components we actually send into space are usually decades out of date by the standards of modern technology, and it’s not because of how government procurement works — it’s because space is a very hostile environment, and there usually won’t be anyone around to fix things when they go wrong.
There are a few things to consider — spacecraft are often expected to perform in environments with a lot of radiation, and where things get either very very cold, or very very hot, and can cycle rapidly between both extremes. Electronics don’t generally do well with any of that – and the more advanced the chips, the more sensitive they are to both temperature and radiation.
Another consideration is, as mentioned earlier: nobody will be around to fix this stuff, so it needs to be able to work for long periods of time without maintenance. And with the latest technology, we have no way of knowing how some of these components will perform over years or even decades in adverse environments.
The chips and equipment used in spacecraft generally have decades-long track records in military or other high stress environments on earth, so they’re well proven, and they’re as simple as they possibly can be to do the job that they need to. That simplicity is an advantage, because it means there’s less to go wrong, and it also costs less to make it resistant to heat cycles and radiation. It also means that these components consume less power, which is a huge plus for a spacecraft that has to make do with a trickle of power from solar panels.
People often highlight that a modern smartphone or even a calculator has more processing power available than the Apollo mission, but that’s a massive understatement – a modern smartphone might have more processing power available than a state-of-the-art satellite, simply because they can afford to put newer, high-performance processors in it and there’s a wall nearby that you can use when the battery runs down. The satellite doesn’t have that luxury.
Yes, it’s possible we could do a lot more in terms of high-resolution science with the most advanced technology we can produce — but it would be far more expensive, and far less reliable. People already complain about the money spent on the space program, even though it represents less than 1% of the government’s budget and it actually has the highest return on investment of any government-funded research program in existence — these are both facts — it’s worth the money.
But consider the incredible success of things like the Mars rovers, the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes, or the Voyager Spacecraft (which are now 50 years old). They are lessons in doing a lot with a little, at least in terms of processing power, and excellent examples of how properly applying a little technology can go a long, long way — in this case, all the way across the solar system.
The post Tech Talk: Modern tech and space exploration appeared first on Times Leader.