From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c79f3b963251b5a8
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Mike Stark <michael.e.stark@gsfc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: Ada Success Story
Date: 1997/03/03
Message-ID: <331B2A1B.2885@gsfc.nasa.gov>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 222827778
References: <97030217550301@psavax.pwfl.com>
Organization: NASA Goddard Space Flight Center -- Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-03-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Marin David Condic, 561.796.8997, M/S 731-93 wrote:
> 

> 
>     The 1750 is truly an old machine, but it's about the only thing
>     available for deep space environments. It's really tough to work
>     within its memory and speed limitations. If anybody knows of a
>     more advanced, faster processor that is suitable for deep space
>     that doesn't cost six figures a pop and has some proven track
>     record, I'd *really* like to hear about it!
> 
>     MDC
The Space Station uses Intel 386 (and presumably 387), which aren't 
*quite* as old as the 1750 ;  I think there are other rad-hard 
processors, but I'm no expert so I won't name them.

Mike

> 
=========
>     "Airplanes are interesting toys but of no military value."
> 
>         --  Marechal Ferdinand Foch, Professor of Strategy, Ecole Superieure
>             de Guerre.
> ===============================================================================