4 ms·
> skeptical how much better modern hardware will fare in deep space conditions Why? Deep space radiation is only 4x the dosage compared to LEO. Starlink satell
by NavinF 2y ago
> skeptical how much better modern hardware will fare in deep space conditions
Why? Deep space radiation is only 4x the dosage compared to LEO. Starlink satellites use modern tech and they've spent >10,000 collective years in space since we launched more than 2 of them. The whole "modern electronics are more fragile" issue is overblown. The CPUs are tiny and easy to shield. The MMICs use huge features that you can see with a normal microscope.
- sgarland 2y agoWhat is Starlink’s failure rate? Genuinely asking; I don’t know. My point is that if it’s > 0, that’s a problem for something designed to go billions of miles away.
- picture 2y agoWhere did you get the number of 4x from? It seems different than what I understand, but I don't have any sources handy. "Modern electronics are more fragile" issue really is not overblown. One of my peers have tested different types of non volatile memory in LEO and the TLC NAND sample gets totally wiped by ionizing radiation within the first week. CPUs, while being mostly logic and less susceptible to low energy events, can still be easily destroyed especially if radiation causes latchup. MMICs and discrete devices have huge features in comparison yes, but the junctions still degrade notably under radiation. From my opinion as someone working on LEO satellite hardware, it's easy to have opinions about stuff like correctness and reliability because it is not naturally intuitive and usually requires observation of many samples over a long time that it doesn't affect most engineers. However, I've definitely seen a strong correlation between the effort spent on correctness and reliability, and the success of missions.