Where are Voyager and Pioneer heading?

[Cerenkov]

You've just reminded of something I read a long time ago about the chips used in NASA space probes, Alex.

Can't quite recall the details, but it went something like this.

A NASA spokesman commented on the kind of chips put aboard long-duration probes like Pioneer and Voyager, citing the power of the chip and its date of manufacture. This raised a mini media storm because the chip was quite an old one with much less power than was available at the time of their launch.

Questions were asked. Why doesn't NASA use the very latest and most powerful chips rather than these outmoded ones? Can't they afford them? Is this some kind of administrative oversight? And so on.

It turned out that NASA wanted chips with proven reliability rather those with greater power.

The reason being that reliability over years and decades far outweighs any potential gains made in computing power. If it takes over a decade to get to planets like Uranus and Neptune, but you only have two years performance data for the chip - because its so new - then it makes good strategic, long-term sense to go with a chip you know will last for a very long time.

Seeing as the Voyager probes are now in their 49th year of continuous operation NASA made the right choice.

Thanks,

Cerenkov.

 

[AlexB23]

You've just reminded of something I read a long time ago about the chips used in NASA space probes, Alex.

Can't quite recall the details, but it went something like this.

A NASA spokesman commented on the kind of chips put aboard long-duration probes like Pioneer and Voyager, citing the power of the chip and its date of manufacture. This raised a mini media storm because the chip was quite an old one with much less power than was available at the time of their launch.

Questions were asked. Why doesn't NASA use the very latest and most powerful chips rather than these outmoded ones? Can't they afford them? Is this some kind of administrative oversight? And so on.

It turned out that NASA wanted chips with proven reliability rather those with greater power.

The reason being that reliability over years and decades far outweighs any potential gains made in computing power. If it takes over a decade to get to planets like Uranus and Neptune, but you only have two years performance data for the chip - because its so new - then it makes good strategic, long-term sense to go with a chip you know will last for a very long time.

Seeing as the Voyager probes are now in their 49th year of continuous operation NASA made the right choice.

Thanks,

Cerenkov.

Yeah, kinda like an old 1990s Toyota that never breaks vs a high tech Tesla that breaks after a year. I see why NASA has been using older chips. Better to rely on an old tech that has been tested for years vs a new tech. Same reason why some folks wait for more established car companies to make EVs. Luckily, that is happening with Toyota. Finally, full EVs from them are being released.