🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <48tifh$d3i@access5.digex.net>, nigel@access5.digex.net says...
>
>In article <48sosk$u1q@cisu2.jsc.nasa.gov>,
>Leonard Schmitt <schmitt@pat.mdc.com> wrote:
>>In article <48oig8$d06@firehose.mindspring.com>, md@mindspring.com (Mike 
Donnellan) writes:
>
>[snip]
>
>>Yes, the Space Station will be using 386SX-16 and 386SX-12 CPUs for
>>"command and control" processing.  I was told these CPUs are easier to
>>space harden against radiation effects than the newer CPUs.
>
>Yes, there are flight qualified 386 CPUs for spacecraft.  AFAIK there
>aren't any faster intel chips that has gone through the required rad,
>thermal etc testing (let me know if you do...I know a few people who'd
>be interested :).  There's a flight qualified R3000 but I think if you
>need FP performance the 386 w/math co out runs it.
>
>That's not to say that you can't fly other chips...someone flew an
>un-qual'd 68K machine on the shuttle with no adverse effects (I think
>it was on a getaway special) and I think they've brought notebooks up.
>The thing to remember about these particular examples is that the
>shuttle flies in a fairly tame orbit in a human friendly thermal
>environment with plenty of power.
>
>Not quite the same for a lot of unmanned missions...nor do you want to 
>depend on un-qual'd chips for mission ciritical elements...losing a
>getaway special is one thing...losing a 40 million dollar experiment
>is another.  You can do that with the old fasioned 1750As :)
>
>Nigel
>
>
All I know is that my refrigerator/freezer runs great on it's 8088
processor!  It dispenses all the ice and water I could hope for.
Isn't technology wonderful?