4 ms·

How does functional integration interfere with robustness?

JRKrause 5y ago
One method of making a chip 'tougher' is to physically increase the size of the semiconductor elements (e.g. transistors, FETs). This would seem incompatible with highly-integrated ICs.
- xyzzy21 5y ago
  This is true. For radiation hardening for space, this is exactly what is required for anything more harsh than LEO. And as a consequence, the generation of processors and memory typically used are 10-20 years behind the current state of the art. That's simply the price of reliability in harsh environments!
bayindirh 5y ago
The discrete components are designed, tested and verified after a long stint and their specs are frozen. It's a bit like space hardware. You verify an older CPU design can work reliably in space, and certify that processor. Then, you use the same foundation for a decade or so. It's same with automotive industry. You have a well defined and certified stack from Delco, Bosch, Delphi, etc. and you can trust that hardware. Integration makes you return back to square one. I remember Toyota tried unifying some control units into a single box, and 5-6 years considered realistic if not a little optimistic.
- pySSK 5y ago
  To add to that, some of these features are extremely specialized, and for each feature, 1-2 of the big players might have a huge technical advantage and economies of scale in production and in supplying. This leads to higher barrier to entry and not enough margin for other players to replicate the feature.
  - foobarian 5y ago
    Funny, this sounds exactly like why microservices have an advantage over monoliths in big organizations.
- Isinlor 5y ago
  SpaceX works around that by using consumer grade stuff and just replicating it 3 times. Tesla also managed to handle issues with supply shortages very well. The old practices are just not good enough.
  - hulitu 5y ago
    Tesla is not a car. It looks like one, it might behave a bit like one but i would not touch such a thing even with a 9 m pole. I heard too many horror stories about Tesla requirements.
    - bayindirh 5y ago
      If it looks like a duck (car), and moves like a duck (car), and quacks like a duck (car), then it's a duck (car) in my book. What other thing should it have? An ICE? Then Nissan Leaf, Ford F150 electric, and BMW i series are not cars either.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > SpaceX works around that by using consumer grade stuff and just replicating it 3 times Falcons get refurbished after short flights. That reduces the emphasis on durability. Redundancy defends against random errors, reducing the need for radiation hardening. It does less against wear and tear.
  - pas 5y ago
    > The old practices are just not good enough. True, but also think about the path dependence of the old companies. They have withered a lot of ups and downs, they are not the innovators, they are the very slow incrementalists that despite this release a new boring model every few years dressed up as the new best thing ever. (If you have seen a car from one manufacturer you have seen them all from them for the past decades too.) The whole car industry is a relatively high volume & low margin & medium risk business. (The unit economics is great, but any risk kills profitability, so there was a lot of consolidation and convergence.) Basically the car industry is like the "iphone industry" except there's some actual price competition and worse fundamentals, plus Apple is relatively young (and Steve set up a pretty high pace, and expectations, plus the fundamentals of the components - eg. semi industry, radios, displays - are really moving forward, whereas internal combustion engines, and the material science of other car components are not).

One method of making a chip 'tougher' is to physically increase the size of the semiconductor elements (e.g. transistors, FETs). This would seem incompatible with highly-integrated ICs.

xyzzy21 5y ago
This is true. For radiation hardening for space, this is exactly what is required for anything more harsh than LEO. And as a consequence, the generation of processors and memory typically used are 10-20 years behind the current state of the art. That's simply the price of reliability in harsh environments!

bayindirh 5y ago

The discrete components are designed, tested and verified after a long stint and their specs are frozen. It's a bit like space hardware. You verify an older CPU design can work reliably in space, and certify that processor. Then, you use the same foundation for a decade or so. It's same with automotive industry. You have a well defined and certified stack from Delco, Bosch, Delphi, etc. and you can trust that hardware. Integration makes you return back to square one. I remember Toyota tried unifying some control units into a single box, and 5-6 years considered realistic if not a little optimistic.

pySSK 5y ago
To add to that, some of these features are extremely specialized, and for each feature, 1-2 of the big players might have a huge technical advantage and economies of scale in production and in supplying. This leads to higher barrier to entry and not enough margin for other players to replicate the feature.
- foobarian 5y ago
  Funny, this sounds exactly like why microservices have an advantage over monoliths in big organizations.
Isinlor 5y ago
SpaceX works around that by using consumer grade stuff and just replicating it 3 times. Tesla also managed to handle issues with supply shortages very well. The old practices are just not good enough.
- hulitu 5y ago
  Tesla is not a car. It looks like one, it might behave a bit like one but i would not touch such a thing even with a 9 m pole. I heard too many horror stories about Tesla requirements.
  - bayindirh 5y ago
    If it looks like a duck (car), and moves like a duck (car), and quacks like a duck (car), then it's a duck (car) in my book. What other thing should it have? An ICE? Then Nissan Leaf, Ford F150 electric, and BMW i series are not cars either.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > SpaceX works around that by using consumer grade stuff and just replicating it 3 times Falcons get refurbished after short flights. That reduces the emphasis on durability. Redundancy defends against random errors, reducing the need for radiation hardening. It does less against wear and tear.
- pas 5y ago
  > The old practices are just not good enough. True, but also think about the path dependence of the old companies. They have withered a lot of ups and downs, they are not the innovators, they are the very slow incrementalists that despite this release a new boring model every few years dressed up as the new best thing ever. (If you have seen a car from one manufacturer you have seen them all from them for the past decades too.) The whole car industry is a relatively high volume & low margin & medium risk business. (The unit economics is great, but any risk kills profitability, so there was a lot of consolidation and convergence.) Basically the car industry is like the "iphone industry" except there's some actual price competition and worse fundamentals, plus Apple is relatively young (and Steve set up a pretty high pace, and expectations, plus the fundamentals of the components - eg. semi industry, radios, displays - are really moving forward, whereas internal combustion engines, and the material science of other car components are not).