This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.

Tim

On 04/03/2013 14:47, Tim+ wrote:
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

That NASA report[2] does not mention memory capacity:

although the rest of the storey seems to fit...

Elsewhere[1] they say:

"On-board memory includes 256MB of DRAM and 2 GB of Flash Memory both
with error detection and correction and 256kB of EEPROM. This onboard
memory is roughly 8 times as capable as the one onboard the Mars
Exploration Rovers."

Keep in mind that it was not designed "in this day an age", but possibly
a significant amount of time before. I don't know how long space
exploration equipment lead times are, but I would be surprised if they
are any quicker than military ones, and in those circles its not unknown
for memory technology to actually go obsolete before the design of the
thing is even finished!

(2GB of milspec, rad hardened flash is not bad!)

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.


[1] http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/.../rover/brains/
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ms...l20130228.html



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:19:31 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 04/03/2013 14:47, Tim+ wrote:
This story intrigued me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the
craft, the rover launched with only the software needed to land.
Once on the planet, new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this
day and age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one
of the least significant things?

That NASA report[2] does not mention memory capacity:

although the rest of the storey seems to fit...

Elsewhere[1] they say:

"On-board memory includes 256MB of DRAM and 2 GB of Flash Memory both
with error detection and correction and 256kB of EEPROM. This onboard
memory is roughly 8 times as capable as the one onboard the Mars
Exploration Rovers."

Keep in mind that it was not designed "in this day an age", but
possibly a significant amount of time before. I don't know how long
space exploration equipment lead times are, but I would be surprised
if they are any quicker than military ones, and in those circles its
not unknown for memory technology to actually go obsolete before the
design of the thing is even finished!

(2GB of milspec, rad hardened flash is not bad!)

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more
reliance on a good upload link.


[1] http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/.../rover/brains/
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ms...l20130228.html




This might help:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...uilt-for-mars/

--
Davey.

On 04/03/2013 14:47, Tim+ wrote:
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.

I'd expect all the software to be stored in a ROM on board, but with
different sets of software loaded at different points in the mission to
increase reliability. While the weight penalty of extra RAM is minimal,
every gramme counts in spaceflight, installing all the software
permanently will increase the chances of corruption, and will also
increase the power draw of the computers, so increasing the dead weight
of the rover to handle this.

There is also likely to be an ultimate backup procedure to load software
from a signal sent from Earth. The corruption, according to NASA, is in
a segment of the Flash memory attached to one of the computers, so they
may well end up just sending a difference file to rewrite the corrupted
bits, and may also have to map some RAM as unusable. They may also be
able to feed data from the uncorrupted flash on Computer B if that uses
the same OS, although good practice would suggest that the computers use
different operating systems to increase reliability.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on
a
good upload link.

Tim

Plus it would have to search for a wi-fi hotspot to download any new
software.

mark

On 04/03/13 14:47, Tim+ wrote:
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.

Tim

I think I saw that one of the problems was radiation damage to
pre-installed software..

The option was to load what was needed and check it, once it had in fact
got there.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

"mark" wrote in message
news

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day
and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on
a
good upload link.

Tim

Plus it would have to search for a wi-fi hotspot to download any new
software.

And I bet the first message it sent back was that Adobe needed updating

"Tim+" wrote in message
...
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on
a
good upload link.

Pretty amazing when they can upload new software from Earth to a computer on
Mars, yet I can't get a wifi signal in the bog.

Pretty trusting too, if it's anything like the gadgets I've encountered,
it's probably sitting in a Martian desert flashing the message "this update
can only be installed via USB cable".

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 16:14:18 -0000, "Mentalguy2k8"
wrote:


"Tim+" wrote in message
...
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on
a
good upload link.

Pretty amazing when they can upload new software from Earth to a computer on
Mars, yet I can't get a wifi signal in the bog.

Pretty trusting too, if it's anything like the gadgets I've encountered,
it's probably sitting in a Martian desert flashing the message "this update
can only be installed via USB cable".

Na. It's not running Windows.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

Davey wrote:
On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 15:19:31 +0000
John Rumm wrote:

On 04/03/2013 14:47, Tim+ wrote:
This story intrigued me.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the
craft, the rover launched with only the software needed to land.
Once on the planet, new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this
day and age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one
of the least significant things?

That NASA report[2] does not mention memory capacity:

although the rest of the storey seems to fit...

Elsewhere[1] they say:

"On-board memory includes 256MB of DRAM and 2 GB of Flash Memory both
with error detection and correction and 256kB of EEPROM. This onboard
memory is roughly 8 times as capable as the one onboard the Mars
Exploration Rovers."

Keep in mind that it was not designed "in this day an age", but
possibly a significant amount of time before. I don't know how long
space exploration equipment lead times are, but I would be surprised
if they are any quicker than military ones, and in those circles its
not unknown for memory technology to actually go obsolete before the
design of the thing is even finished!

(2GB of milspec, rad hardened flash is not bad!)

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more
reliance on a good upload link.


[1] http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/.../rover/brains/
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ms...l20130228.html




This might help:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57...uilt-for-mars/


Thanks. An interesting read.

Tim

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 16:44:56 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article ,
"Mentalguy2k8" wrote:

Pretty trusting too, if it's anything like the gadgets I've encountered,
it's probably sitting in a Martian desert flashing the message "this update
can only be installed via USB cable".

"Missing keyboard - hit any key to continue" more like.

I've seen that actual error message.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) If a man stands in a forest and no woman is around
(")_(") is he still wrong?

On 04/03/13 16:14, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day
and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance
on a
good upload link.

Pretty amazing when they can upload new software from Earth to a
computer on Mars, yet I can't get a wifi signal in the bog.


ah, but if you had a couple of billion you would.

Pretty trusting too, if it's anything like the gadgets I've encountered,
it's probably sitting in a Martian desert flashing the message "this
update can only be installed via USB cable".

well there is a subtle difference between 256K of hand coded assembler
written and tested over 10 years by professionals and 64MB of bloatware
written in PYTHON by a graduate who hasn't a clue.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 04/03/2013 16:14, Mentalguy2k8 wrote:

"Tim+" wrote in message
...

This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day
and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance
on a
good upload link.

Pretty amazing when they can upload new software from Earth to a
computer on Mars, yet I can't get a wifi signal in the bog.

Ah, that will be the crap radio shielding then ;_

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...on-shield.html




--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In message

nal-september.org, Tim+ writes
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

Don't forget that design for this was prolly fixed 10-15 years ago and
was then based on proven technology

Rocket science just ain't rocket science


One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.

Tim

--
geoff

In message , John
Rumm writes
On 04/03/2013 14:47, Tim+ wrote:
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

That NASA report[2] does not mention memory capacity:

although the rest of the storey seems to fit...

Elsewhere[1] they say:

"On-board memory includes 256MB of DRAM and 2 GB of Flash Memory both
with error detection and correction and 256kB of EEPROM. This onboard
memory is roughly 8 times as capable as the one onboard the Mars
Exploration Rovers."

Keep in mind that it was not designed "in this day an age", but
possibly a significant amount of time before. I don't know how long
space exploration equipment lead times are, but I would be surprised if
they are any quicker than military ones, and in those circles its not
unknown for memory technology to actually go obsolete before the design
of the thing is even finished!

(2GB of milspec, rad hardened flash is not bad!)

Good old silicon on sapphire - they just don't make it like they used
to


One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.


[1] http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/.../rover/brains/
[2] http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ms...l20130228.html




--
geoff

Tim+ writes:

This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.

If the upload link is no good, the rover is just scrap metal anyway.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ O n e t e l . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Its interesting that this is flash memory's the other surviving rover has
also had issues with the same kind of memory.
The second chain, now in charge will probably fix things for a while, but
it does seem that radiation can upset this sort of memory if it is exposed.
Certainly the journey to Mars for Curiosity did have a few glitches due to
sun activity, and one must assume that some damage has occurred. apparently
a new ram health testing system is in work, presumably to mask out bad or
suspect areas. As you say one would have though more spare might have been
taken. I was also a bit perturbed by the breaking of a small tank of
chemicals that allowed th testing overns to be flooded by the leaked
chemicals. Would one not make sure all fluid containers were made either
more robust or at the very least so the leak could be routed away from the
instruments?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"Tim+" wrote in message
...
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on
a
good upload link.

Tim

I don't think the issue of errors is really an issue as there will be rock
solid error protection involved. However it does take some time to do it. I
understand that there was of course some minimal software for using the
science instruments on board, and in fact the memory must have survived the
trip or things would have gone wrong. I'm sure though we all know that
memory can fail due to earlier partial damage, so it could indeed have been
compromised in flight, and has now become unreliable.
Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message

nal-september.org, Tim+ writes
This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

Don't forget that design for this was prolly fixed 10-15 years ago and was
then based on proven technology

Rocket science just ain't rocket science


One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on
a
good upload link.

Tim

--
geoff

On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:31:02 +0000, geoff wrote:

Rocket science just ain't rocket science

No rocket science is rocket science it isn't cutting edge science but
tried and tested science.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 05/03/2013 10:06, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:31:02 +0000, geoff wrote:

Rocket science just ain't rocket science

No rocket science is rocket science it isn't cutting edge science but
tried and tested science.

The silly thing is that rocket science is actually pretty simple. You
burn something, it gets hot, it shoots out the back. The hotter it
burns and the smaller the molecules in the exhaust the faster it goes,
and the more thrust you get.

That's it. That's all.

Rocket engineering, on the other hand...

Andy

On 05/03/2013 07:50, Windmill wrote:
writes:

This story intrigued me. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21654308.

See the last paragraph. " Due to capacity limitations on the craft, the
rover launched with only the software needed to land. Once on the planet,
new software had to then be installed remotely."

Is that likely? Of all the things to take to Mars, surely in this day and
age, the weight penalty of a bit of memory is probably one of the least
significant things?

One the one hand I suppose it makes sense as the landing software is
redundant after landing but it seems to be putting a lot more reliance on a
good upload link.

If the upload link is no good, the rover is just scrap metal anyway.

Unless things go horribly wrong (Oh, yes, they have....) there is no
need for an upload link for the programming, it's all held in flash
memory on board and loaded as required under ground control.

Even now, the most that will have to be uploaded is a short code
sequence to re-map the flash and the damaged code segments.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message o.uk, Dave
Liquorice writes
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:31:02 +0000, geoff wrote:

Rocket science just ain't rocket science

No rocket science is rocket science it isn't cutting edge science but
tried and tested science.

I thought that was what I had said


--
geoff

In message , Andy Champ
writes
On 05/03/2013 10:06, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Mon, 4 Mar 2013 23:31:02 +0000, geoff wrote:

Rocket science just ain't rocket science

No rocket science is rocket science it isn't cutting edge science but
tried and tested science.

The silly thing is that rocket science is actually pretty simple. You
burn something, it gets hot, it shoots out the back. The hotter it
burns and the smaller the molecules in the exhaust the faster it goes,
and the more thrust you get.

That's it. That's all.

Rocket engineering, on the other hand...

Is conservative and doesn't take risks

--
geoff