05-15-2012, 07:55 AM
[quote name='vasu_ray' date='15 May 2012 - 06:28 AM' timestamp='1337043027' post='114859']
Wouldn't the SoC concept used in A5 help in the reduction of weight of electronics on the Sats significantly?
[/quote]
SoC makes perfect sense for IMU-INS. For mission computer that will not cut it. In modern times it makes sense that mission computer runs a stripped down RTOS, and abelity to run ADA compliant code.
For sat application SoC will help to some extent. Main power hogging happens due to DSP (image or communication).
Note that even mission computer for missile should be designed for redundency, and SoC is not the best way for that.
It was not long ago that my Yanki-Nippon team used SoC for multi-axis motion control, where people had earlier sunk $$$$ and more $$$$ on treaditional CPUs, and said SoC can't be done. When it was all said and done, there was still 95% CPU cycles in spare. Now that worked for cost sensitive clean room application, OTOH for strategic rockets, there are other softer requirements that more important.
Wouldn't the SoC concept used in A5 help in the reduction of weight of electronics on the Sats significantly?
[/quote]
SoC makes perfect sense for IMU-INS. For mission computer that will not cut it. In modern times it makes sense that mission computer runs a stripped down RTOS, and abelity to run ADA compliant code.
For sat application SoC will help to some extent. Main power hogging happens due to DSP (image or communication).
Note that even mission computer for missile should be designed for redundency, and SoC is not the best way for that.
It was not long ago that my Yanki-Nippon team used SoC for multi-axis motion control, where people had earlier sunk $$$$ and more $$$$ on treaditional CPUs, and said SoC can't be done. When it was all said and done, there was still 95% CPU cycles in spare. Now that worked for cost sensitive clean room application, OTOH for strategic rockets, there are other softer requirements that more important.