3 ms·
The software is much simpler on Voyager so there’s not a lot to go wrong and there are a shitload of failsafes that have to go wrong before the vehicle stops wo
by Shawnj2 3y ago
The software is much simpler on Voyager so there’s not a lot to go wrong and there are a shitload of failsafes that have to go wrong before the vehicle stops working. For example on some stuff I’ve worked on and the Mars rovers there are multiple boot chips per flight computer and multiple flight computers per vehicle, and even if both are dead you can do some basic tasks just using a micro controller on the radio.
- ungamedplayer 3y agoThat is extremely cool. I'd love to have a walk though if how this works.
- Shawnj2 3y agoI agree, I linked some stuff in my response to the other comment
- barbazoo 3y agoI can't even imagine how much testing this must have gone through. Is there by any chance literature you'd recommend about this kind of tech? Maybe more on the lighter side?
- Shawnj2 3y agoOne interesting read from a purely software side is the JPL C standards, which are an extension of software standards for things like Mars rovers that cannot not work. There’s a summary on page 4 if you don’t want to read the whole thing https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf https://yurichev.com/mirrors/C/JPL_Coding_Standard_C.pdf Here’s a good article specific to Voyager https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/voyager-mission-anniversary-computers-command-data-attitude-control/ https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/voyager-mission-annive... I can’t find it but there was a slide deck online for Curiosity with an explanation of all the stuff I was talking about above