←back to thread

1355 points LorenDB | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.262s | source
Show context
whatever1 ◴[] No.44300677[source]
Question why is it so easy today to build reusable rockets? Is it because the onboard cpu speed of the chips can solve more granular control problems with low latency?
replies(17): >>44300707 #>>44300730 #>>44300742 #>>44300756 #>>44300762 #>>44300776 #>>44300818 #>>44300828 #>>44300964 #>>44301068 #>>44301170 #>>44301448 #>>44301882 #>>44301989 #>>44302135 #>>44307276 #>>44308491 #
rvnx ◴[] No.44300818[source]
We now have realistic simulators like: http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/ -> (it's free and open-source: https://github.com/orbitersim/orbiter )

so now the main problem is building the hardware, there are a lot of solutions for the software part.

Before there were no general-purpose simulators, and barely usable computers (2 MHz computer with 2 KB of memory...), so all you could do was hardcoding the path and use rather constrained algorithms.

replies(2): >>44301131 #>>44301413 #
morganherlocker ◴[] No.44301413[source]
> so now the main problem is building the hardware, there are a lot of solutions for the software part.

While cool and all, this type of sim is a tiny, tiny slice of the software stack, and not the most difficult by a long shot. For one, you need software to control the actual hardware, that runs on said hardware's specific CPU(s) stack AND in sim (making an off the shelf sim a lot less useful). Orbital/newtonian physics are not trivial to implement, but they are relatively simple compared to the software that handles integration with physical components, telemetry, command, alerting, path optimization, etc. etc. The phrase "reality has a surprising amount of detail" applies here - it takes a lot of software to model complex hardware correctly, and even more to control it safely.

replies(1): >>44301472 #
1. rvnx ◴[] No.44301472[source]
Certainly not a trivial problem I totally agree, but still significantly easier than Von Braun with his paper calculations.