AmigaOne X1000: best potential mini-space shuttle controller?

[jorkany]

On another forum a discussion came up regarding personal mini-space shuttles, and if the X1000 would be the best computer to control them. With the closure of NASA's Shuttle Program, personal mini-space shuttles are of course on the way. The infrastructure to build, fuel, launch and maintain these mini-space shuttles is mostly in place and not much of a development concern - the real issue is, what type of computer is best suited to control them?

Clearly, systems running Unix aren't the best choice. The special needs of controlling a personal mini-space shuttle require the Power of X, and although Unix does have an "X" in it, it's not the first letter. No other computer today has X as the first letter, unless you count the Xbox but that's just a console and would just make the whole experience feel like a watered-down FPS.

Windows? No X.
Linux? Last letter.
OS X? Although "X" comprises 2/3 of the name, it's still the last letter which means NOT ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON X.

Even if someone decided to try and pull the rug out from under the X1000 by naming their computer something like "XComp 2000", they still won't have as much "X": Xena. Xorro. Xtc.

So what do you think? With personal mini-space shuttles just around the corner, do you think that the X1000 is the best choice for controlling them?

[jj]

I think this should be a poll, but I can not deny the logic.  I can easily think of a computer with more relation to  X

[Tension]

Best as in worst you mean? The c64dx has had a lot more time to be tested.  Plus it actually exists.

[persia]

To protect this fragile market they should rename A-Eon to X-Eon.  

Amiga One X1000 - have you had your X today?

[wiser3]

I think the logical answer is QNX.
http://www.qnx.com/

It's micro-kernal architecture is very efficient and fast and the stability level is amazing. It's not used for controlling nuclear power plants because it crashes. It's used because it never crashes.

I like to think the AmigaOS would have become like QNX if it had continued.

[_ThEcRoW]

"Houston, we have a problem. The deployment satellite software has just overwritten the memory allocated of the life support program. How we do from here?"

[persia]

Remember that picture of the lifeforms on Mars we had?  Well it seems the only copy was in the RAM disk.....

X-Eon AmigaxOne X1000 now with more X!

"Houston, we have a problem. The deployment satellite software has just overwritten the memory allocated of the life support program. How we do from here?"

[brownb2]

Windows? No X.
Linux? Last letter.
OS X? Although "X" comprises 2/3 of the name, it's still the last letter which means NOT ENOUGH EMPHASIS ON X.

So what do you think? With personal mini-space shuttles just around the corner, do you think that the X1000 is the best choice for controlling them?

Clearly not a job for a classic amiga, it's first only designation letter was an "A" and that is about as far away from an X as you can possibly get.

I say we send an XTerm(inal) and do it all remotely.

[takemehomegrandma]

With the closure of NASA's Shuttle Program, ... With personal mini-space shuttles just around the corner, do you think that the X1000 is the best choice for controlling them?

Well, the price of the thing sure fits NASA's grandiose spending budget model, that's for sure.

Who knows, could perhaps even turn out that NASA will be the only one affording it! :p

[haywirepc]

Yeah right lets take a processor thats slower than 4 year old pcs, an operating system with no memory protection, and a worse web browser than I have on my cell phone and use it for mission critical control applications.

[trekiej]

A cell phone for a controller on a rocket would be cool to see.
Maybe we will have ultra light space craft some day.

[Tripitaka]

Yeah right lets take a processor thats slower than 4 year old pcs, an operating system with no memory protection, and a worse web browser than I have on my cell phone and use it for mission critical control applications.

You don't need a lot of processing power for a space shuttle, you need to be able to multi task properly and a web browser is pretty irrelevant. An IBM AP101 could do the job, well 5 of them to be safe, gotta have back-ups.

The biggest problem I've had with my personal space shuttle has not been the computer system anyway. It's been trying to find enough space to store the high-altitude zeppelin I launch it from.

Steam-shuttles, the only way to fly.

[Karlos]

Yeah right lets take a processor thats slower than 4 year old pcs, an operating system with no memory protection, and a worse web browser than I have on my cell phone and use it for mission critical control applications.

Although the subject matter of the thread is clearly entertainment, you seemingly haven't heard that almost all mission critical systems, particularly on spacefaring hardware is way, way lower spec than anything you'd get in a consumer device, right?

What matters for these applications is robustness rather than speed. For example, the Mars rovers use PPC based processors that run at only ~33MHz that were made when desktop machines were in the high hundreds. However, unlike your current 2-4GHz processor, these devices will withstand radiation levels that would literally kill you within minutes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RAD6000

So, as it happens, the PPC architecture is already familiar territory for this sort of application.

[Kesa]

Although the subject matter of the thread is clearly entertainment, you seemingly haven't heard that almost all mission critical systems, particularly on spacefaring hardware is way, way lower spec than anything you'd get in a consumer device, right?

What matters for these applications is robustness rather than speed. For example, the Mars rovers use PPC based processors that run at only ~33MHz that were made when desktop machines were in the high hundreds. However, unlike your current 2-4GHz processor, these devices will withstand radiation levels that would literally kill you within minutes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_RAD6000

So, as it happens, the PPC architecture is already familiar territory for this sort of application.

It says 20Mhz and not 33Mhz depending on what link you look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_embedded_computer_systems_on_board_the_Mars_rovers

Anyway I'm guessing robustness is only a part of it. They would also be interested in power conservation over performance as they rely on power from the sun to charge their batteries.

[dreamcast270mhz]

@HaywirePC

The 1.8GHZ dual core PA6T should be equal to a C2Duo at 3Ghz. WHy? PPC executes more data per cycle than x86 due to its smaller pipelines. And unless you have a smart phone, most Amiga Browsers way outclass your typical mobile web browser. More on this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megahertz_myth

And as Karlos said clock rate and CPU power is irrelevant to Aviation and Space applications. For instance, the F-14 Tomcat used i386 and i486 CPUs in the F-14D variant, and that was in use until 2006. And the F-22 Raptor I believe uses a 604e derived CPU. Game consoles are also a good example. The Gamecube used a 400mhz CPU when CPU power in desktop PCs was 1-2.5 Ghz in range, yet it runs many games a PC never could? It has to do with application entirely.