5 ms·
The power consumption (280W) for the weight (70kg) seems rather low. What sort of power consumption did similar era computers, that took up a room, have?
by fyfy18 7y ago
The power consumption (280W) for the weight (70kg) seems rather low. What sort of power consumption did similar era computers, that took up a room, have?
- dogma1138 7y agoIt didn’t took a room it’s a flight computer iirc it’s still in use on the Soyuz. And it sounds about right for a 70’s era hardened military computer. The US used 5 AP-101s for the shuttle they where about 22kg each and the power figures I could find range from 370w to 480w. Bare in mind that there is a good chance that a large part of the power consumption could have went into thermal stabilization rather than computation given that the system power consumption of say an Apple II was around 5w.
- ahoka 7y agoIt was replaced by TsVM-101 in Soyuz TMA-M and later models so they can use that 70kg for payload. Edit: Found a nice source for a lot of information including comparision between the Argon and the TsVM: http://www.bis-space.com/belgium/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/russiafuture.pdf http://www.bis-space.com/belgium/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/... The new module is 8.3kg and consumes 46 watts of power.
- pinewurst 7y agoThanks for that! It's interesting that Argon-16 (and its replacement) are located in the service module which is jettisoned after the deorbit burn.
- dogma1138 7y agoNo need for it in the crew compartment, overall it’s likely worth bringing and additional 70kg of equipment back than a computer that can likely won’t survive the landing.