w_tom wrote:
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> > OK, and why should spacecraft designers care for computers that are only
> > used on earth's ground?
>
> Again, the word is reliability. Designs must be functionally well
> proven AND use parts that are 'fully qualified'. Speed of computer
> chip is not as important as design been well proven AND money already
> spent to have a part 'fully qualified'.
>
> Any complicated computations are better performed on earth.
>
> Again, electronics for different environments - space, military, or
> retail - have different parameters. Furthermore, most all electronics
> is redundant. Function of an IC for military or aerospace is more
> often a same function found previously in retail products. IC
> certified for harsh environments may take many years to eventually be
> 'fully qualified'. By that time, hardware is considered obsolete in a
> retail marketplace.
>
> Meanwhile, a legacy from retail designs (ie hardware that is not
> harmed by software) is later incorporated in those 'harsh environment'
> designs. 'High tech' contains mostly legacy designs with a few
> innovations. If a completely new design is defective (if software can
> harm the hardware), then the concept called legacy corrects that
> problem and verifies it does not happen again. Then hardware is ready
> for other environments. Again, the word is reliability.

Oh, so durable military computers' hardware CANNOT be destroyed by
software, then? No way no how. It is impossible as in truly, utterly,
IMPOSSIBLE.