4 ms·

> The experiment was designed to test the performance of the HPE Spaceborne Computer, which is comprised of 32 separate cores that work together and can run ope

> The experiment was designed to test the performance of the HPE Spaceborne Computer, which is comprised of 32 separate cores that work together and can run operations 30 to 100 times faster than a standard iPhone or tablet That doesn't sound that super to me! "100 times faster than a phone" just doesn't have an impressive ring to it.

Bluecobra 8y ago
It is compared to the 386 processors on the main command computers. :) https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/spacex-is-launching-a-supercomputer-to-the-international-space-station/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/spacex-is-launching-...
- ljcn 8y ago
  Cool. The control machine seems like a bit of a waste though. Hardware degrades randomly even on Earth, it'll be hard to make any meaningful comparison with a single sample.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  And it looks like it's not a clear winner over those, either. It's sort of funny how many of the flaws of old computing hardware turned out to be hugely beneficial for use in space. Bulky transistors that are relatively safe from bit flipping, high power draw that means small fluctuations don't cause outages, limited processing and storage that forced efficiency and lowered the amount of stuff exposed to radiation. I'm not sure where the tipping points would be, but it wouldn't surprise me if getting a 386 working in space is easier than getting a Pentium 4 to achieve the same things.
ReverseCold 8y ago
32 cores makes it sound like they bought a regular Xeon or EPYC chip and sent it to the ISS
- ams6110 8y ago
  Pretty much. The Spaceborne Computer includes the HPE Apollo 40 class systems with a high speed HPC interconnect running an open-source Linux operating system. Though there are no hardware modifications to these components, we created a unique water-cooled enclosure for the hardware and developed purpose-built system software to address the environmental constraints and reliability requirements of supercomputing in space. Generally, in order for NASA to approve computers for space, the equipment needs to be “ruggedized” – or hardened to withstand the conditions in space. https://news.hpe.com/hewlett-packard-enterprise-sends-supercomputer-into-space-to-accelerate-mission-to-mars/ https://news.hpe.com/hewlett-packard-enterprise-sends-superc...
Bartweiss 8y ago
Yeah, not sure where the article came up with that word. It looks like this was about testing a custom variant of a server/supercomputer processor to see how long it would hold up, yeah. So presumably ECC and the 32 cores are on one or two processors, but definitely not an actual supercomputer or even the high end of single chips. For that matter, it doesn't look like stage one of putting a supercomputer into space. (And really, why would you want that?) From that last paragraph, its tasks from now on will be running sample takeoff and landing calculations, which implies this is about testing whether modern tech can replace existing flight computers.
znpy 8y ago
I do not expect much more from Wired.

Bluecobra 8y ago

It is compared to the 386 processors on the main command computers. :) https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/spacex-is-launching-a-supercomputer-to-the-international-space-station/ https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/spacex-is-launching-...

ljcn 8y ago
Cool. The control machine seems like a bit of a waste though. Hardware degrades randomly even on Earth, it'll be hard to make any meaningful comparison with a single sample.
Bartweiss 8y ago
And it looks like it's not a clear winner over those, either. It's sort of funny how many of the flaws of old computing hardware turned out to be hugely beneficial for use in space. Bulky transistors that are relatively safe from bit flipping, high power draw that means small fluctuations don't cause outages, limited processing and storage that forced efficiency and lowered the amount of stuff exposed to radiation. I'm not sure where the tipping points would be, but it wouldn't surprise me if getting a 386 working in space is easier than getting a Pentium 4 to achieve the same things.

ReverseCold 8y ago

32 cores makes it sound like they bought a regular Xeon or EPYC chip and sent it to the ISS

ams6110 8y ago
Pretty much. The Spaceborne Computer includes the HPE Apollo 40 class systems with a high speed HPC interconnect running an open-source Linux operating system. Though there are no hardware modifications to these components, we created a unique water-cooled enclosure for the hardware and developed purpose-built system software to address the environmental constraints and reliability requirements of supercomputing in space. Generally, in order for NASA to approve computers for space, the equipment needs to be “ruggedized” – or hardened to withstand the conditions in space. https://news.hpe.com/hewlett-packard-enterprise-sends-supercomputer-into-space-to-accelerate-mission-to-mars/ https://news.hpe.com/hewlett-packard-enterprise-sends-superc...

Bartweiss 8y ago

Yeah, not sure where the article came up with that word. It looks like this was about testing a custom variant of a server/supercomputer processor to see how long it would hold up, yeah. So presumably ECC and the 32 cores are on one or two processors, but definitely not an actual supercomputer or even the high end of single chips. For that matter, it doesn't look like stage one of putting a supercomputer into space. (And really, why would you want that?) From that last paragraph, its tasks from now on will be running sample takeoff and landing calculations, which implies this is about testing whether modern tech can replace existing flight computers.

znpy 8y ago

I do not expect much more from Wired.