PIC's in space

It's always interesting to hear where PIC's end up. For some reason it always pleases me to discover the product I bought has a PIC chip in it. So I get even more interested when I hear about things like this: (Might have something to do with my interest in PIC's, ham radio, and space.) Of course, they don't explicitly say it has Microchip's PIC's in it.... But hey, with 4 years spent on it by Microchip engineers, I doubt they were using Arduino :D.

http://www.microchip.com/pagehandler...te-That-D.html

Attachment 5856

ARISSat-1 is the prototype test flight for a proposed series of educational satellites being developed in a partnership with the Radio Amateur Satellite Corp. (AMSAT), the NASA Office of Education ISS National Lab Project, the Amateur Radio on ISS (ARISS) working group and RSC-Energia. If all goes well with tomorrow’s deployment, it will perform the following primary functions:
· Two-way communication via UHF uplink and VHF downlink, for use by ham radio operators
· Visuals of space from four cameras
· Recharging of the satellite’s battery using solar panels, enabling operation for months
· Transmission of audio greetings in many languages, for reception via simple radios or scanners
· Telemetry transmissions with updates on the health of the satellite
· House an experiment from Russia’s Kursk University that measures atmospheric pressure

Attachment 5857

Quote:

---

But hey, with 4 years spent on it by Microchip engineers, I doubt they were using Arduino :D.

---

That make sense... Perhaps Z80 or 8051? :D

Here's one you can actually buy if you have about $300,000 (excluding launch costs) to spare http://www.cubesatkit.com/#

Compared to traditional multi-million-dollar satellite missions, CubeSat projects have the potential to educate the participants and implement successful and useful missions in science and industry at much lower costs.

CubeSat payloads and experiments are often new and unique, and project timelines are typically 9-24 months from inception to launch. Since launch opportunties are scheduled well in advance, it's critically important that a CubeSat project adhere to its schedules and stay on time and under budget.

CubeSat missions still require considerable planning and many man-hours of work to maximize the chances for success. By employing as much standardization as possible you can concentrate on your project's mission-specific goals. By making use of as many off-the-shelf commercial and freely available tools and components in the construction of the nanosatellite, you'll save time and money.

Attachment 5859

SuitSat-1 using PIC18F8722
http://www.microcontroller.com/news/...tSat1_NASA.asp

I wonder how are the electronics cooled in space. Even the slight temp rise has to be taken into account since there is no heat dissipation in space.

IR maybe?

Ioannis

IcePaks and Vanilla Ice ... the dairy product... not the rapper :D

I can guarantee that some of my hardware designs - and code are orbiting the earth. There are many challenges. For example: Go to DigiKey and
buy a Panasonic lithium cell. Ask them if the cell will work in a vacuum. They will tell you they don't know. If you call Panasonic, they will also tell you
they don't know.
You will find the same thing with most capacitors. You may need a 450uF @ 50V. You can't use electrolytics because they generally can't take vacuum.
Tantalums generally have an MTBF (Mean Time Between Failures) that is too low (at least according to MIL-HDBK 217). The answer is 21 X 22uF ceramic caps
in parallel. Pricey!

And testing isn't always the answer. You can only test a few. What if there is a 10% failure rate of a part when subjected to 5 years of vacuum, and you
have 2 parts (because of price or availability) that you can test for 1 month at most (because of delivery schedules)? Now it isn't just electronics, it is statistics. And what if a part fails during testing? You start all over.

A full-blown military testing sequence (MIL-810, MIL-461, DO-160 etc.) generally costs $50K - $75K. This is the cost for unit #1. If the military wants 4 pieces
of something that doesn't already exist, then testing adds at least $13K to each one.

People are amazed when they find the military spends $500 for a hammer or some exorbitant amount for a part and they get outraged and want their congressman to take action.
I assure you, not all of that is graft and/or corruption.

And it doesn't hurt that you can cook that PIC18F8722 chip up to 257 degrees F and still be in spec. But there are a few PIC chips, like the PIC18F4680 that go up to 302 F!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Linquis

People are amazed when they find the military spends $500 for a hammer or some exorbitant amount for a part and they get outraged and want their congressman to take action.
I assure you, not all of that is graft and/or corruption.

---

You can probably find that same hammer or a similar one at HomeDepot for $20. The contractors don't necessarily follow the specs all the time. I have seen over the years many overpriced products and projects been sold to the government.

Robert

I'm not denying that you can find the same one at Home Depot for $20. My point is that the military probably will not buy that hammer from Home Depot without a test report stating that it meets certain requirements.
I see all sorts of requirements, such as NO PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) - a common plastic used to coat lots of things, like hammer handles and wire insulation.
PVC can't be used because if it is in a fire, it releases toxic fumes, which can kill a pilot or a submariner.

Also, we sometimes have to prove (by analysis or testing) that no material used in our product is destroyed by a variety of chemicals - like jet fuel, bunker fuel, sea water or engine oil.

And often, we are must test to prove that the metals used will not corrode when subjected to 14 days of high-temperature salt-fog spray.
We can't perform any of these tests ourselves, the tests must be performed by a qualified third-party testing lab that has *proved* they are qualified to test to a given MIL spec.

Home Depot's hammers may, in fact, meet all the requirements. But will they provide test reports to prove it? I serously doubt it.

Still, how do you cool a 7805 in space??? I insist on this :)

Ioannis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ioannis

Still, how do you cool a 7805 in space??? I insist on this :)

Ioannis

---

A quick search in google... Radiators that emit heat as IR.

Quote:

---

Telecommunication satellites are all based on the same overall design using a 3 axis stabilization process, in which the North and South panels act as radiators and so ensure heat removal.

---

http://www.electronics-cooling.com/1...e-electronics/

A lot of the thermal analysis tools we use (FlowWorks, for example) allows you to assign materials and heat sources (in Watts, BTUs, or other units). You build your mechanical model, assign all heat sources (7805's or PICs or whatever), tell it what the conductivity and "emissivity" rating of the materials and surfaces (flat black, shiny black, titanium , aluminum alloy, etc), and tell the program it must use "radiation only", and it will tell you what temperature it will stabilize at. Sometimes you have to add to radiant sources - a large heater called "the sun" and a smaller one called "the earth".

It is totally amazing what FEA and thermal analysis tools can do these days.

IR was what I thought too. But I suppose that the size in this case would be considerably larger. This would add to the total weigh too.

Very interesting subject.

Thanks for the inputs.

Ioannis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Linquis

I'm not denying that you can find the same one at Home Depot for $20. My point is that the military probably will not buy that hammer from Home Depot without a test report stating that it meets certain requirements.
I see all sorts of requirements, such as NO PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) - a common plastic used to coat lots of things, like hammer handles and wire insulation.
PVC can't be used because if it is in a fire, it releases toxic fumes, which can kill a pilot or a submariner.

Also, we sometimes have to prove (by analysis or testing) that no material used in our product is destroyed by a variety of chemicals - like jet fuel, bunker fuel, sea water or engine oil.

And often, we are must test to prove that the metals used will not corrode when subjected to 14 days of high-temperature salt-fog spray.
We can't perform any of these tests ourselves, the tests must be performed by a qualified third-party testing lab that has *proved* they are qualified to test to a given MIL spec.

Home Depot's hammers may, in fact, meet all the requirements. But will they provide test reports to prove it? I serously doubt it.

---

I can verify the validity of Charles' statements as I do my work inside a test lab, as for the $20 hammer, I am sure it would work in " most " of the Govt.'s needs, the problem as I see it is in the Mil. Spec.'s usage. Typically they have an Equipment Specialist who determines "Which" mil spec. gets chosen for that hammer. If He chooses the wrong one then "Doggies and Marines" end up carrying $6000 hammers into battle instead of the $20 ones. It IS an area which MUST have some changes, Product engineers MUST be allowed to question the buyers, and as taxpayers they should.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archangel

...Product engineers MUST be allowed to question the buyers, and as taxpayers they should.

---

<cynicism> But will the managers/VPs/Board allow it? Where is the profit in that? </cynicism>

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteveB

<cynicism> But will the managers/VPs/Board allow it? Where is the profit in that? </cynicism>

---

Sometimes. Probably not in the case of the hammer, an example, that comes to mind, while building a fixture, OEMs engineer spending OPM, specs an threaded insert which our cost was $600 ea in qty 100. No benefit in this unusual insert. Boss told the buyer, buyer told the lead engineer and inserts got changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Archangel

I can verify the validity of Charles' statements as I do my work inside a test lab, as for the $20 hammer, I am sure it would work in " most " of the Govt.'s needs, the problem as I see it is in the Mil. Spec.'s usage.

---

I know he is right. Like you say the problem is in the spec's usage and also in all the bureaucracy involved in the process.

I know that everyone really loves to believe in conspiracies, but there isn't one. They guy ordering the hammer fills out a form. That form may or may not request that he state the specs it must adhere to. If is used in space, he checks a certain number of boxes. If is used around airplanes and fuel, he may check another (after all - the hammer may have to be made from a metal that doesn't produce sparks when it hits something hard. There are a very large number of "boxes". He doesn't know how much the hammer costs, or what the difference in cost really is if he checks, or doesn't check box #39. The guy just needs a certain type of hammer. The request goes to the buyer, who knows little or nothing about specs. So the buyer sends out the RFQ (Request For Quote) to a variety of hammer suppliers. The suppliers see that the hammer must be tested to pass a particular test suite and and they submit their bids. They aren't colluding, they just realize that they are going to have to send their hammer out for $20K testing, and price their hammer accordingly.
The buyer gets the lowest bid and buys the hammer from the lowest cost (and approved) supplier. The original guy gets his $500 hammer (or $1000 hammer, or whatever). He is happy. He DOES NOT KNOW (or care) how much that hammer cost. Even if he did, what other person in his organization would listen? If anyone buys a $20 hammer at Home Depot and it fails when used for a particular application in Afghanistan, he loses - big time, maybe it somehow results in the death of a soldier. If he goes through accepted channels, chose the correct "boxes" (explained above), and gets a $500 hammer and it fails in Afghanistan, it is not his fault.

Which would you choose, the $20 hammer or the $500 hammer? And who is the "evil" money-grubbing person here?

I have done a little government contract work myself, and I can assure you there are more then 2 sides to this low level debate, and in any single case, any position will be more correct.

On the other hand, how bout those pic's in space? Pretty darn cool if you ask me.

Btw, you left out the ever famous carc paint. Has a shelf life of just about 8 hours after opening, so no chance of using that gallon past that day, but it sure is expensive. And that's after a coat of wash primer, then epoxy primer. Then the adhesion testing and salt fog. Btw the prep before the wash primer was sand blasting to white then prime within an hour or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Linquis

I know that everyone really loves to believe in conspiracies, but there isn't one. They guy ordering the hammer fills out a form. That form may or may not request that he state the specs it must adhere to. If is used in space, he checks a certain number of boxes. If is used around airplanes and fuel, he may check another (after all - the hammer may have to be made from a metal that doesn't produce sparks when it hits something hard. There are a very large number of "boxes". He doesn't know how much the hammer costs, or what the difference in cost really is if he checks, or doesn't check box #39. The guy just needs a certain type of hammer. The request goes to the buyer, who knows little or nothing about specs. So the buyer sends out the RFQ (Request For Quote) to a variety of hammer suppliers. The suppliers see that the hammer must be tested to pass a particular test suite and and they submit their bids. They aren't colluding, they just realize that they are going to have to send their hammer out for $20K testing, and price their hammer accordingly.
The buyer gets the lowest bid and buys the hammer from the lowest cost (and approved) supplier. The original guy gets his $500 hammer (or $1000 hammer, or whatever). He is happy. He DOES NOT KNOW (or care) how much that hammer cost. Even if he did, what other person in his organization would listen? If anyone buys a $20 hammer at Home Depot and it fails when used for a particular application in Afghanistan, he loses - big time, maybe it somehow results in the death of a soldier. If he goes through accepted channels, chose the correct "boxes" (explained above), and gets a $500 hammer and it fails in Afghanistan, it is not his fault.

Which would you choose, the $20 hammer or the $500 hammer? And who is the "evil" money-grubbing person here?

---

Charles,

I tried to send you a PM message but apparently your inbox is full. This is the message I got

Charles Linquis has exceeded their stored private messages quota and cannot accept further messages until they clear some space.

Robert

Still damn cool to send stuff in space, but always found it useless. Why do not fix, inderstand problem on earth first?

Lots of people die each eand every day because they can't eat... that 500$ hammer would feed couple of familly already.

They haven't solve the stinky feet problem.. maybe this is why they want to send people in space then ? :D

so sad and true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsN3icByqUo

That's a great classic you've got here... One on my favorite 80's track EVER!

About that plane using it's landing gear as an airbrake, that would just shear the gear off in jetfighters. :D

(great video)

I received the notice about the PIC in space, very cool stuff. Google amateur rocketry and it's amazing how far even that has progressed. Shoot, private companies are now planning on going in space (not up to date where they're at today).

First thing that crossed my mind with all this. Isn't NASA worried about all the space debris up there? And having private individuals launching all sorts of crap up there would not endanger manned missions?

Debris should be lost in a black hole, then teleported in Goldorak's a$$ :D They don't care, like the one before us didn't care about nature/earth... see where we are right now.